Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04512-07
Original file (04512-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100



 TJR
 Docket No: 4512-07
20 February 2008



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 20 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 20 June 1962 at age 17. Less than six months later, on 3 December 1962, you were convicted by civil authorities of kidnapping, attempted assault, grand larceny of an automobile, attempted robbery, and possession of a dangerous weapon. You were sentenced to treatment as a youthful offender and subsequently released to military authorities.
During the period from 27 February to 22 October 1963 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions and were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM). Your offenses were three specifications of disobedience, absence from your appointed place of duty, breaking restriction, dereliction of duty, and an eight day period of unauthorized absence (UA).


On 4 January 1964 you received NJ? for a brig violation and were awarded diminished ratio ns for three days. The next day, on 5 January 1964, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 16 January 1964 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities and a civil conviction. On 28 January 1964 the discharge authority approved the foregoing recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 4 February 1964 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, post service conduct, and desire to upgrade your discharge so that you may obtain veterans’ benefits. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterizati o n of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct in both the military and civilian communities. Finally, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08

    Original file (02008-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07898-09

    Original file (07898-09.pdf) 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient injustice. 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 | CY2010 | 04699-10

    Original file (04699-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2011. 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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10254-10

    Original file (10254-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2011. 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 | CY2012 | 00741-12

    Original file (00741-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2012. 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 | CY2011 | 04098-11

    Original file (04098-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. 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 | CY2011 | 03191-11

    Original file (03191-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. On 13 November 1991 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities as evidenced by a civil misdemeanor conviction, two NUPs, failure to pay just debts, and writing insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11

    Original file (00939-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2011. 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06130-10

    Original file (06130-10.pdf) 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. On 25 September and 28 November 1972 your command received two letters of indebtedness resulting from your failure to pay just debts. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10329-02

    Original file (10329-02.pdf) 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. 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. The Board, in its review of your...