DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJIR
Docket No: 8098-07
3 October 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late father’s 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 1 October 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 late father’s 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.
Your father enlisted in the Navy on 10 July 1944 at age 17 and
began a period of active duty on 20 July 1944. About two months
later, on 27 September 1944, he was convicted by summary court-
martial (SCM) of a six day period of unauthorized absence (UA).
On 2 January 1945 he was again convicted by SCM of a 10 day
period of UA. On 28 March 1945 he received captain’s mast (CM)
for disobedience. Shortly thereafter, on 18 April 1945, he
reported for duty aboard the USS LST 970. Four days later, on 21
April 1945, he was transferred from the LST 970. On 25 December
1945 he received CM for absence from his appointed place of duty.
On 18 January 1946 your father began a period of UA that was not
terminated until 23 January 1946 when he was apprehended by civil
authorities and held in confinement on charges of four counts of
armed robbery. On 18 March 1946 he was convicted by civil
authorities of robbery and sentenced to an unspecified period of
confinement.
Subsequently, he was notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction. It appears that at that time he waived his right to
consult with legal counsel and to present his case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 18 May 1946 his
commanding officer recommended an undesirable discharge by reason
of misconduct due to civil conviction. This recommendation also
stated, in part, that it was not Navy policy to retain a thief.
On 13 June 9146 the discharge authority approved this
recommendation, and on 26 June 1946, while in custody of civil
authorities, your father was so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your late father’s entire record and
your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating
factors, such as his youth, limited education, post service
conduct, and your assertions of his marital, family, financial,
and emotional problems. It also considered your assertions that
changes should be made to the record based on current standards,
the harshness of your late father’s discharge, and abuse of
authority. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your late
father’s discharge because of the seriousness of his repetitive
misconduct in both the military and civilian communities.
Further, the record contains documented evidence which is
contrary to your assertions. Finally, even if your late father
was experiencing marital, family, financial, and emotional
problems, these problems were not excuses for his misconduct, and
as such disciplinary action and administrative discharge, even
under current standards, are appropriate. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06637 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 | 01719-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03412-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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 21 May 1947, while in civil custody, the discharge authority directed discharge by reason of desertion for a 137 day period of UA and civil...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07888-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2008. on 16 March 1946, your late husband The Board, in its review of your late husband's record and your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and your contention that he was discharged due to medical problems. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11524-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12091 14
The Board also reviewed the correspondence and enclosures from your attorney in which he requests an upgrade of your discharge. It also considered the dismissal of your civil conviction. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct in the military community and your actions that led to a conviction by civil authorities.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02770-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. April 1945 you received CM on two occasions for missing muster, On 22 March 1945 the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct On 3 February 1945 the confinement You were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08015-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge because of his repeated periods of UA during wartime, court-martial convictions which resulted in BCD, and his continued misconduct after being awarded a BCD. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05757-00
On 8 December 1944 you were convicted by deck court On 18 October and on 3 November 1944 you received During the period from 12 February to 20 June 1945 you were convicted by DC on three occasions for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA), drunkenness, and absence from your appointed place of duty. 15 months, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were told that the discharge would be Even if you were,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08325-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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...