DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL 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: 10329-02
12 September 2003
his is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of ~ i t l e 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 9 September 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 27 December 1957 at age 18.
You served for a year and three months without disciplinary
incident, but on 10 March 1959 you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of
duty and w e r e awarded confinement on bread and water for three
days. On 11 May and again on 16 July 1959 you were convicted by
summary court-martial (SCM) of a one day period of unauthorized
absence (UA), failure to obey a lawful order, absence from your
appointed place of duty, resisting arrest, and breach of the
peace.
On 27 May 1960 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)
of a 45 day period of UA. The punishment imposed was confinement
at hard labor for four months, a $200 forfeiture of pay,
reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD),
which was suspended for six months.
On 23 February and 8 December 1961 you received NJP for
disrespect, two specifications of contempt, failure to obey a
lawful order, and dereliction of duty.
On 1 Februarv and 5 March 1962 YOU were convicted bv SCM of
disrespect and destruction of p;operty.
16 March 1962 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your
case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB
recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due
to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military
authorities. Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended
an undesirable discharge, stating, in part, as follows:
Shortly thereafter, on
(Member) performs his duties in an average manner.... he
refuses to leave alcoholic beverages alone even after having
received proper counselling on numerous occasions .... this
appears to be the reason behind most of his offenses.
On 30 March 1962 the discharge authority directed an undesirable
discharge by reason of unfitness, and on 6 April 1962 you were so
discharged.
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 contention that alcohol
addiction was the cause of your problems. It also considered
your contention that there was no available rehabilitation
program to help you with your alcohol problems. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors and contentions were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your repetitive miscanduct, which resulted in three
NJPs and five court-martial convictions. Further, the Board
noted that you were properly counselled on numerous occasions
concerning your alcohol problem, but refused to stop your
excessive. 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 | CY2003 | 03695-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2003. On 30 June 1959 an administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be retained in the Marine Corps. When you were informed that administrative separation action had been initiated due to the civil conviction, you again elected to retain all of your procedural rights.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07708-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02068-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 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 | CY2001 | 07148-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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 | 10441-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2003. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 14 August 1970 you received an undesirable discharge by reason 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06863-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100SMWDocket No: 6863-07 5 March 2008This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 5 March 2008, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01501-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 1999. The Board noted that despite the fraudulent entry during your first period of service, you were honorably discharged and recommended for reenlistment. 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 | 00347-99
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per month for four months and a bad conduct discharge. Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended an You were so discharged on An enlisted The Chief of Naval The board concluded The Board noted your contentions that you had an NJPs and convictions by four summary courts-martial and a In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 13 April 1962 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and sentenced to hard labor for...