DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D 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: 7893-02
24 April 2003
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 22 April 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 Navy on 20 September 1974 at age 19. On 22
May 1975 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two
specifications of disobedience, making a false official
statement, and absence from your appointed place of duty.
punishment imposed was correctional custody for 30 day, a
forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade E-1, which was
suspended for three months. On 4 August 1975 you received NJP
for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, two
specifications of disobedience, and disrespect. The punishment
imposed was correctional custody for 20 days. The suspended
reduction awarded at the 22 May 1975 NJP was also vacated at this
time. On 26 September and again on 13 October 1975 you received
NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty
and disobedience.
The
On 27 November 1975 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of convenience of the government due
to substandard performance. After consulting with legal counsel
you waived your right to present your case to an administrative
discharge board and to submitted a statement of rebuttal to the
separation. On 28 November 1975 your commanding officer
recommended separation by reason of convenience of the government
due to substandard performance. Subsequently, the discharge
authority approved this recommendation your commanding officer
was directed to issue you a general discharge by reason of
convenience of the government due to substandard performance, and
on 17 December 1975 you were so discharged.
At the time of your separation character of service was based, in
part, on conduct and overall trait averages which were computed
from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your conduct
and overall traits averages were 1.9 and 2.0, respectively.
Averages of 3.0 and 2.7 were 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, post service conduct, and your
contention racial discrimination. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your
repetitive misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and failure to
attain the required conduct and overall trait averages. The
Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you
submitted none, to support your contention of racial
discrimination. Further, no discharge is automatically upgraded
due to the passage of time and/or an individual's good behavior
after discharge. 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 0 t h ~ ~
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.
matter not previo~isly considered by t.he Roasd.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08750-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 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. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-083
On June 1, 1976, the applicant was transferred from the BURTON ISLAND to Coast 1. I would further ask that should you feel that I should indeed be discharged from the Coast Guard, that my discharge be an Honor- able one rather than a General discharge. On November 17, 1976, the base Executive Officer noted that the applicant had refused to sign his discharge papers and so he told the applicant that if he did not agree with his dis- charge, he “had the right to appeal to the Board of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01832-99
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materi 1 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. However, th+ Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant rec aracterization of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06297-00
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2001. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacteri- zation of your discharge given your record of three NJPs and special court-martial conviction, and your failure to achieve the required averages in military behavior and overall traits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03508-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2009. 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 | CY2002 | 06136-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2003. A minimum average conduct mark of 3.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation. 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 | 07709-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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.