Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07620-02
Original file (07620-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F  NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N  D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TJR 
Docket No: 7620-02 
27 May 2003 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United 
States Code, Section 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 20 May 2003.  Your allegations of error and 
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative 
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 
Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 
your application, together with all material submitted in support 
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, 
and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient 
to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 19 September 1952 after two 
years of prior honorable service in the Army.  You continued to 
serve without incident until 13 May 1973 when you received 
nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for a two day period of unauthorized 
absence (UA).  The punishment imposed was extra duty for a week. 
On 5 November 1953 you received NJP for disorderly conduct and 
were awarded a suspended reduction to paygrade E-2. 

On 10 January 1955 you received NJP for damage to military 
property and were awarded a reduction to paygrade E-2.  Two days 
later, on 12 January 1955, you were convicted by summary court- 
martial  (SCM) of two specifications of disobedience.  You were 
sentenced to reduction to paygrade E-1 and a $65 forfeiture of 
pay.  Shortly thereafter, on 22 February 1955, you were convicted 
by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of failure 
to obey a lawful order.  You were sentenced to confinement at 
hard labor for two months and a $100 forfeiture of pay. 

On 17 September 1955, at the expiration of your enlistment, you 
received a general discharge. 

Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and 
proficiency averages which are computed from marks assigned 
during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 3.94.  An 
average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your 
separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as 
your youth and immaturity, prior honorable service, and your 
contentions that your discharge was based on one incident that 
occurred over a three year period, and that your discharge would 
have been upgraded had you applied for an upgrade in a timely 
manner.  It also considered your contention that you were asked 
to reenlist but couldn't because of your mother's illness. 
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and contentions 
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your 
discharge because of your repetitive misconduct, and since your 
conduct average was insufficiently high to warrant an fully 
honorable characterization of service.  The Board noted that 
there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to 
support your contentions.  Further, regardless of when an 
application has been filed, no discharge is automatically 
upgraded.  Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that 
favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the 
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a 
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval 
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the 
existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09219-02

    Original file (09219-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 4 June 1957, you received a third NJP for disorderly conduct, and were awarded reduction to paygrade E-1.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08841-98

    Original file (08841-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07893-02

    Original file (07893-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this recommendation your commanding officer was directed to issue you a general discharge by reason...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08556-01

    Original file (08556-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 20 October 1960 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06601-01

    Original file (06601-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02

    Original file (09384-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10392-02

    Original file (10392-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07702-01

    Original file (07702-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10272-02

    Original file (10272-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07792-01

    Original file (07792-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...