DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 09232-07
6 August 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 5 August 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 21 May 1952 at age 17. On 17 August
1953, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for public
intoxication. You then served for over two years without
incident until 15 September 1955, when you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of larceny of a radio, camera, and
Kodak Splicer, and unlawful entry into two civilian homes and a
church with intent to commit larceny. You were sentenced to a
forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor, a reduction in
paygrade, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 8 November 1955,
you requested to be restored to full duty. However, your
commanding officer did not recommend restoration, and you
received the BCD after appellate review was completed.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, post service accomplishments, and numerous
contentions, such as that you were improperly represented by your
counsel. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and
contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given your NUP and conviction by SPCM for very
serious offenses.
Concerning your contention of inadequate counsel, the Board
Cannot consider such a contention as it pertains to a court-
martial, and must restrict it review to clemency action on the
sentence. With regard to your other contentions, there is no
evidence in the record to support them, and you submitted no such
evidence. 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,
“DEAN P ER
Executive re&tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03750-07
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. You were sentenced to confinement for 16 days. 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 | 04030-07
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05378-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. 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 | CY2009 | 11380-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. You received the BCD after appellate review was complete. 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 | CY2002 | 04497-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2003. 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 30 June 1955 you received an undesirable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07134-00
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. Your record further reflects that on 19 May 1954 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an eight day period of UA and sentenced to hard labor for 15 days, a $10 forfeiture of On 9 September 1954, while in a UA status, you were apprehended by civil authorities for temporary...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10183-02
You were again convicted by SPCM on 11 October 1956 of larceny and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $60 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 21 October You were sentenced to a $30 forfeiture of pay You were sentenced to confinement at hard Your allegations of error and The BCD However, on' by civil authorities ,on 23 On 11 January 1957 you were convicted by SPCM of the foregoing period of UA and sentenced to a $330 forfeiture of pay, On 3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01128-04
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 injusticeThe Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 25 July 1951 at age 17. On 7 February 1955 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02968-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2008. However, in your absence, you were still sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD). 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 | 01575-08
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...