Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05059-07
Original file (05059-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT 0F THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-S100


 CRS
Docket No: 5059-07
4 April 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 2 April 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 6 March 1964 after more than three years of prior active service. On 19 April 1964 you received nonjudicial punishment for assault and drunk and disorderly conduct. On 6 January 1965 you were convicted by civil authorities of robbing a homosexual. The court sentenced you to confinement for five years which was suspended and replaced with probation for five years.
On 25 January 1965 your commanding officer recommended that you be separated from the Navy with an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. When informed of the recommendation, you waived the right to present your case to an administrative board. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 9 February 1965 you were separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct.
On 10 February 1978 the Naval Discharge Review Board upgraded your discharge to general based on the belief that you were the victim of a homosexual assault, rather than the perpetrator of a robbery as found by the civil court.
In its review of your application the Board carefully considered your contention that you were falsely accused of a crime that you did not commit, and weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth at the time in question, and your good post service conduct and accomplishments. The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention concerning the events which resulted in your civilian conviction. It concluded that the mitigating factors present in your case are insufficient to warrant recharacter i zat i on of your service as fully honorable, given the serious nature of the offense of robbery. 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 | CY2003 | 05654-03

    Original file (05654-03.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 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 | CY2007 | 03077-07

    Original file (03077-07.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 April 2008. your application, thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07927-07

    Original file (07927-07.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 3 April 1961 at age 17. On 10 February 1965 an ADB recommended an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10105-07

    Original file (10105-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR3639 13

    Original file (NR3639 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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 | 01092 12

    Original file (01092 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 24 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. On 15 October 1965, you were convicted by a SPCM of being UA for 113 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06453-01

    Original file (06453-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. the disciplinary action taken, paygrade E-l and a $50 forfeiture of However, the record does not reflect if any, for these periods of UA. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07701-07

    Original file (07701-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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. 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 | CY2009 | 04245-09

    Original file (04245-09.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 March 2010. On 29 April 1965, your commanding officer forwarded your case concurring with the Boards’ findings and recommendation that you receive an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. 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 | 08686-08

    Original file (08686-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. After being informed of the recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your Case to an administrative discharge board. 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.