Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11288-06
Original file (11288-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                        CRS
                                                                                          Docket No; 11288-06
                                                                                          28 February 2008




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 13 February 2008. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 30 March 1965. A special court-martial convened on 20 October 1965 and found you guilty of unauthorized absences totaling 13 days. On 29 January 1966 you were convicted by civil authorities of being intoxicated. The court sentenced you to confinement for ten days. On 24 February 1966 you were convicted by a second special court-martial of an unauthorized absence.
Upon being notified that you were being processed for administrative separation by reason of unfitness, you waived your rights to counsel and to appear before an administrative discharge board. On 12 April 1966 your commanding officer recommended that you be separated from the Navy with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement with civil and military authorities. On 20 April 1966, the Chief of Naval Personnel advised you that a board of officers appointed by him for that purpose had recommended that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of unfitness, and that he had approved the issuance of an undesirable discharge, but suspended its execution for a probationary period of twelve months. On 14 July 1966, you were convicted by special court-martial of an unauthorized absence and missing movement. Thereafter, the probation was revoked, and you
 were separated from the Navy on 24 October 1966 with an undesirable discharge. On 30 September 1977, you were notified that your discharge had been reviewed under the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special), and that it was determined that your discharge should not be changed.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contentions that you were too young for military service, you did not have counsel and that you were recommended for a general discharge. The Board found those factors insufficient to warrant the upgrade of your discharge given your extensive disciplinary record. In addition, the Board noted that the discharge authority granted you substantial clemency by suspending the execution of the undesirable discharge, and that you would have received a more favorable characterization of service if you had not committed additional offenses during the probationary period. 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




Copy to:         The American Legion

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00347-99

    Original file (00347-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 08130-08

    Original file (08130-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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. A special court-martial convened on 26 February 1965 and convicted you of two periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 140 days and conduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09724-03

    Original file (09724-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 3 May 1962 at age 19. After review, the discharge authority directed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00918-01

    Original file (00918-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. received NJP for misbehavior as sentinel, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 45 days and a $45 forfeiture of pay. On 13 June 1965 your commanding officer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06118-08

    Original file (06118-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. On 7 June 1966 the command recommended you for an undesirable discharge due to the civil conviction but also recommended that the discharge be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07602-05

    Original file (07602-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 5 July 1962 at age 17. You also received six nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01501-99

    Original file (01501-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 10546-06

    Original file (10546-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 7 October 1965 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 9 February...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01130-99

    Original file (01130-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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 | 04690-99

    Original file (04690-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were so discharged on 15 July The commanding officer noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful search of your service and medical records for any evidence showing you were wounded in action while serving in Vietnam. you were transferred from Vietnam, request to CMC to see if you were reported to have been wounded in action on 26 March 1966. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...