DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 2723-05
24 October 2005
This 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 19
October 2005. 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 17 October 1960 at age 17 with parental
consent. During the period from 13 December 1960 to 29 June 1962 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and were convicted by a
summary court-martial (SCM) and special court-martial (SPCM). Your
offenses included six instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling
about 98 days, two instances of failure to obey a lawful order,
altering an armed forces identification card, and breaking
restriction. During November 1961 civil authorities charged you with
assault with a deadly weapon.
On 20 September 1962 an administrative separation board convened and
recommended that you be separated with a general discharge due to
unfitness. However, the separation authority disapproved the board’s
recommendation due to the command’s failure to comply with applicable
notification requirements.
Accordingly, on 19 October 1962, the commanding officer again
initiated separation action by reason of unfitness and advised you of
the possible consequences of such action. The record
shows that you were advised of your rights and elected to have your case
heard by a field board, and be represented by counsel. On 19 November 1962
a field discharge board convened. The record shows that you were
represented by counsel. The field discharge board subsequently recommended
that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness
and you were so discharged on 14 December 1962.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and your
contention that you did not have counsel or understand the military
process. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the
repetitive misconduct, especially the UA’s that totaled more than three
months. With regard to your contention, the record clearly shows that you
were represented by counsel and understood your legal rights. Therefore,
the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change
is warranted.
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 PFEIFFIER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10144-07
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.On 25 August 1960, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent. On 20 November 1962, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10060-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 2007. 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 11 February 1963 your CO initiated administrative separation action by reason of unfitness, and recommended an undesirable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02757-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2005. 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 | CY2008 | 09405-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you a general discharge by reason of unfitness due to the civil...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02609-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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. On 10 October 1962, you received NJP for UA from your unit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00035-01
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. th'am for money and a place to March 1962 you were convicted by special court-martial of a On 7 46 day period of UA, possession of two military ID cards, making a false official statement, were sentenced to confinement at...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6922 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2014. On 8 October 1962, an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06342-01
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 1 November 1960 you received NJP for On 30 January 1961 you were convicted by convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and were sentenced to restriction and extra duty for 10 days and a $40 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05436 12
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. You elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | 00113-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. During the period from 15 December 1960 to 23 July 1962, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for two brief periods of UA...