DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TJR
Docket No: 9015-02
30 July 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 29 July 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
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 14 March 1960 after three years of
prior service. You continued to serve without disciplinary
incident for five years, but on 12 March 1965 you submitted a
written statement in which you admitted to molesting two underage
children on 3 March 1965. On 20 March 1965, following an
investigation into the aforementioned allegation, you waived your
right to consult with legal counsel and reaffirmed your
statement.
Subsequently, administrative separation action was initiated by
reason of unfitness. A field board then considered your case and
found that you had committed misconduct, but recommended
retention.
On 12 May 1965 your commanding officer advised the discharge
authority of your child abuse and requested that you be issued a
general discharge, stating, in part, as follows:
Primary reason for separation .... indecent acts with
underage children (ages 4 and 5) .... complaint resulted
from mother of one of the girls involved .... during
investigation, Sailor admitted indecent acts.... charges
referred to general court-martial (GCM) .... convening
authority returned charges because children would not be
able to testify at trial and/or insufficient evidence for
trial.
On 18 May 1965 an enlisted performance evaluation board (EPEB) in
the Bureau of Naval Personnel recommended an undesirable
discharge due to unfitness. This recommendation was later
modified to a general discharge by the Chief of Naval Personnel
(CNP). However, on 16 June 1965, CNP directed that the discharge
be held in abeyance in order that you could provide a further
statement. After you were notified that you could do so, and
after consulting with legal counsel, you provided a further
written statement.
Subsequently, on 10 July 1965, you submitted documentation and
character references supporting your request for retention
However, on 15 July 1965, your commanding officer again
recommended a general discharge by reason of unfitness. After
the EPEB concurred, the discharge authority then directed a
general discharge by reason of unfitness on 20 July 1965. On 31
August 1965 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service, post service conduct, and your
contention that since its been over 37 years since you made the
mistake which resulted in your discharge, your characterization
of service should now be changed. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors contention were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge hecause of the seriousness
of your misconduct. Further, no discharge is automatically
upgraded due to the passage of time or due to 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 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01322-01
1968 you were so discharged. On 5 April However, the Board found the evidence and The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity and your contention that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded at the time your enlistment would have expired. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001
My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07861-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 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 8 September 1958 you submitted a written request for an administrative discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08202-01
He was not t. In a brief attached to Petitioner's application, counsel makes the following contentions: 1910.4B; and the effect of an lectured, off the record, to change no- The provisions of the MILPERSMAN which state that a contest plea is tantamount to a conviction, and that any conviction is binding on an ADB, are without force and effect since those provisions are not set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) since that directive empowers the ADB to determine...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04848-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08527-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. Based on your statement, on 18 August 1994 you were notified that separation action was being initiated by reason of your homosexuality.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04971-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. punishment imposed was 10 days of extra duty. 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 | CY2003 | 05654-03
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 entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.Lou enlisted in he Navy on 14 August 1962 at age 18. On 18 February 1965 you submitted a written...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09424-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...