DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TJR
Docket No: 8750-02
20 June 2002
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 18 June 2002. 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 29 August 1977 at the age of 18. On
13 October 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty,
disrespect, and disobedience. The punishment imposed was
correctional custody for 30 days and a $440 forfeiture of pay.
On 20 October 1978 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of convenience of the government due
to below average performance ratings and inability to meet
effectiveness standards. After consulting with legal counsel,
you did not object to the discharge and you waived your right to
submit a statement in rebuttal to the separation. On 14 December
1978 you were assigned adverse marks of 1.0 in the marking
categories of professional performance, military behavior, and
adaptability, and an adverse mark of 2.6 in the category of
military appearance. The reporting senior stated, in part, that
your performance was completely substandard, you were belligerent
and refused to obey orders, you adversely affected morale, and
you disappeared from your work sites. On 20 December 1978 your
commanding officer recommended separation by reason of
convenience of the government due to below average performance,
inability to meet effectiveness standards, and failure to carry
out the smallest task.
On 2 April 1979 an enlisted performance evaluation board
recommended separation with a characterization of service as
warranted by your service record. Subsequently, the discharge
authority directed your commanding officer to issue you a general
discharge and on 6 April 1979 were so discharged.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall
traits averages which are computed from marks assigned during
periodic evaluations. Your conduct and overall traits averages
were 2.1 and 2.5, respectively. Average marks of 3.0 in conduct
and 2.7 in overall traits 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 considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth
and immaturity, and your contentions that you were voluntarily
discharged and that your general discharge has become an obstacle
for possible employment. Nevertheless, the Board found the
evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your substandard
performance, misconduct which resulted in a NJP, and since your
conduct and overall traits averages were insufficiently high to
warrant an honorable 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 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07893-02
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 | CY2002 | 00352-01
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 April 2001. 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. the Naval Discharge Review Board denied the Board carefully weighed The Board concluded that the and the fact that it been more than Counsel contends that while it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00100-03
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. On 23 Plpril 1981 you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation because of your suicidal fantasy. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 04617-08
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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that characterization of service would be determined as warranted by your service record. Given your misconduct and failure to attain the overall trait and behavior mark averages required for a fully honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00159-99
in your record. Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged command due to substandard performance or by reason of inability to adapt to military service." The Board noted that you have applied for the Navy The Board also noted that the commanding and that your contention that You contend that you NJPs in only 16 months of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06648-01
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. 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 | CY2008 | 07653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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 probable...
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.