Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06163-07
Original file (06163-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100








 S MW
 Docket No: 6163-07
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 27 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.
On 1 March 1961, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent and served without incident until 23 May 1963, when you began an unauthorized absence (UA). On 7 July 1963, you were apprehended by civil authorities and held pending charges. On 31 July 1963, you were convicted in civil court of forgery of two checks totaling $890. The court sentenced you to probation and ordered you to pay partial restitution. On 7 October 1963, you were returned to military authorities after being in a UA status for about 137 days.
On 7 January 1964, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an undesirable discharge (UD) and waived the right to have your case heard by a n administrative
 discharge board (ADB). On 17 January 1964, the separation
 authority approved the separation recommendation and directed a UD by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. On 22 January 1964, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth. The Board also considered your contention that your rights were violated because you did not have a trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct. Regarding your contention, apparently your commanding officer chose not to refer you to trial by court-martial for your 137 day period of UA, which could have resulted in confinement and a punitive discharge. The record does show that you were administratively discharged due to a civil conviction, which does not require a trial by court - martial. Finally, the Board noted that you waived the right to have your case heard by an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. 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 PFEIFFER
                                            Executive Director


        





Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12268-08

    Original file (12268-08.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 November 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. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with an undesirable discharge (UD) due to being unfit for military service, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02145-08

    Original file (02145-08.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 23 March 1964, you were issued orders to report to military authorities. 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 01596-09

    Original file (01596-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. 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. 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 | CY2007 | 07433-07

    Original file (07433-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an undesirable discharge (UD), waived the right to have your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00740-09

    Original file (00740-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your |... application on 28 October 2009. On 13 October 1964, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to unfitness. by the Board... .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08614-08

    Original file (08614-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, the passage of time, and your desire to upgrade your discharge. 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 | CY2008 | 00602-08

    Original file (00602-08.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. Furthermore, the Board noted that in addition to your civil conviction, you had an NJP and were convicted by a court-martial. 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...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 03848-08

    Original file (03848-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...