Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01623-09
Original file (01623-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DCG 26370-5100

 

RDZ:ech
Docket No. 01623-09
20 January 2010

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Navai Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ae

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments
(2) Subject's naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, applied to this
Board requesting that the characterization of his discharge be
changed.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Spain, Ms. McCormick and Ms.
Colbert, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 12 January 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3, The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as
follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed ina
timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the
statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 3 May 1961 at
18 years of age. From May 1961 until March 1963 Petitioner
earned solid performance marks and had no disciplinary
infractions. Unfortunately on 4 March 1963, pursuant to his
plea of guilty to a charge of assault, a civil court sentenced
him to pay a fine of $500.00. Due to his conviction Petitioner
was referred to an administrative discharge board (ADB) for the
purpose of determining whether or not he should be retained or
discharged. In his written referral of Petitioner's case to an
ADB his commanding officer recommended that Petitioner be
retained based in part on the fact that Petitioner was a good
worker and the fact that he had no prior disciplinary
infractions. Petitioner obviously believing, albeit mistakenly,
that his commanding officer’s recommendation would be accepyed
by the ADB waived his right to be represented by a military
lawyer .: é

d. On 30 April 1963 the ADB convened and despite the
recommendation of Petitioner’s commanding officer decided that
Petitioner should be discharged with an undesirable discharge
based on its belief that his conviction showed that he was
likely to be a danger to himself and others i£ retained.
Petitioner was so discharged on 24 May 1963.

e. Since his discharge in 1963 Petitioner has been a law
abiding citizen who recently retired from the Verizon
Corporation.

‘CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that favorable action is warranted.

The Board bases its recommendation on the isolated and minor
nature of Petitioner’s offense as well as the absence of
aggravating circumstances which is attested to by the fact that
the civil court, as part of its sentence, could have ordered: a
period of confinement but instead chose only to impose a fine.
Moreover with the benefit of hindsight and as. evidenced by
Petitioner’s post service conduct, the ADB’s opinion that he
would be a danger to himself and others was wrong.

In view of the foregoing the Board believes that the interests
of justice would be better served by changing Petitioner's
discharge from undesirable to general under honorable
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION :

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he
was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions on 24
May 1963 vice the undesirable discharge.

b. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.

c. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be
informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board
on 23 January 2009.

4, It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

RO dD hae
ROBERT D. “ZSALMAN BRIAN J. GEORGE

Recorder Acting Recorder

 

 

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it
is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the provisions of reference (a), has been approved by the
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

a!

WwW. DEAN P
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06366-10

    Original file (06366-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    06366-10 8 September 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MIM Pectin Ref: (a) 10 U.S.c. His commanding officer then referred this matter to an ADB to determine if Petitioner should be retained in the Navy or involuntarily discharged because of his UA. Accordingly, Petitioner was so discharged on 23 June 1992. h. Since his discharge Petitioner has conducted himself in a law abiding manner.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01710-05

    Original file (01710-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 19 July 1963 he was separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unsuitability.h. However, regulations authorized no less than a general discharge for service members who are separated for this reason.j.The Board is also aware that characterization of service by reason of unsuitability is determined by the member’s military record, proficiency and conduct averages, and information pertaining to the military record.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10197-02

    Original file (10197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. imposed was reduction to On 11 March and again on 5 May 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling three days and breaking restriction. January 1961 the discharge authority then directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09868-10

    Original file (09868-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TIR Docket No: 9868-10 24 June 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that the characterization of his undesirable discharge be changed. The minority member notes that Petitioner’s...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 01450-00

    Original file (01450-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S a . The court sentenced him to a f. Subsequently Petitioner was processed for an administrative discharge based on his conviction by civil On 25 February 1955 the discharge authority authorities. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's b. naval record.

  • 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 | 00632-02

    Original file (00632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...

  • 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 | CY2003 | 05104-03

    Original file (05104-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That report shows that Subject has no record of convictions on file with that agency.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. That Subject’s naval record be corrected to show that on 6December 1966 he was issued a general discharge by reason of misconduct vice the undesirable discharge now of record.b. That this Report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.c.