DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 8267-02
18 June 2003
Your allegations of error and
However, on 12
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 17 June 2003.
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.
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 1973 at age 17 and
served for a year without disciplinary incident.
November 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
possession of marijuana and were awarded a $101 forfeiture of
pay.
On 26 June 1975 you received NJP for two periods of absence from
your appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction for
seven days and a $100 forfeiture of pay.
On 30 July 1975 you
were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of failure to go to
your appointed place of duty,
appointed place of duty, disobedience, and disrespect.
sentenced to restriction for 15 days and hard labor without
confinement for 30 days.
During the period from 26 to 28 August 1975 you were in an
unauthorized absence
However, the record does not
reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this two day
period of UA.
Shortly thereafter, on 15 September 1975, you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications
three periods of absence from your
You were
(UA) status.
to
paygrade
E-l,
Regulations
of failure to obey a lawful order and six periods of failure
go to your appointed place of duty.
You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 25 days, reduction to
and a $300 forfeiture of pay.
On 28 October 1975 you received a
third NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and a one day period
of UA.
The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for
30 days.
During the period from 5 to 10 December 1975 you were again in a
UA status.
It appears that you subsequently submitted a written
request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid
trial by court-martial for continued misconduct.
required that prior to submitting this request for discharge, you
confer with a qualified military lawyer, be advised of your
rights, and be warned of the probable adverse consequences of
accepting such a discharge.
It appears that your request for
discharge was granted because the record clearly shows that on 12
December 1975 you were discharged under other than honorable
conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial.
As a result of
this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial
conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge
and confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity.
It also considered your contention
that you were not given legal representation.
Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient
to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your
repetitive misconduct, which also resulted in your request for
discharge.
extended to you when your request for discharge was approved
since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement
at hard labor and a punitive discharge.
The Board also concluded
that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when
your request for discharge was
permitted to change it now.
regulations required for requesting discharge and concluded that
these regulations were contrary to your contention of not
conferring with a qualified military lawyer.
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.
granted,and should not be
Further, the Board noted the
The Board believes that considerable clemency was
Nevertheless, the
2
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05149-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your record also reflects that on 9 December 1974 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totalling four days, absence from your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02916-07
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. During the period from 25 to 29 October 1975 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for four days. However, no disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00945-01
A'three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2001. 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. discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 08289-03
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 on the record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice,You enlistedin the Marine Corps on 6 February 1974 at age 17. You were sentenced to confinement at...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07422-98
imposed was confinement for 30 days. On 9 December 1975 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA. case the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and Accordingly, your application has been no change is warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00646-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | CY2009 | 02408-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2010. 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2001. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for these periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00975-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your applicatiofi on 10 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 1977 you were so discharged. 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.