DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 4149-09
4 November 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband's 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 3 November 2009. 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 husband’s 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 your late husband
entered active duty in the Navy on 14 July 1941. On 18 July
1944, he was appointed as an ensign, pay grade 0-1. On 22
September 1944, he voluntarily tendered his resignation. On 25
September 1944, the commanding officer (CO) of the United
States Naval Training School forwarded your husband’s request
recommending approval. The CO stated that your husband had
failed the navigation course with a grade of “2.0,” and that he
had constant disciplinary difficulties. Your husband was
ranked 534 out of a class of 537. His aptitude for naval
service was “2,0.” On 3 October 1944, your husband requested
cancellation of his resignation request. On 5 October 1944,
the CO of the Naval Training School recommended that your
husband's request be denied. The CO stated that because of his
previous naval service, your husband had been given every
consideration at the time he enrolled in the indoctrination
course. Your husband did not satisfactorily complete the
academic course, and was inclined to expect preferential
treatment. It was the carefully considered opinion of the
command that your husband would not have made an acceptable
naval officer. On 12 October 1944, the Secretary of the Navy
approved your husband's resignation request. On 22 October
1944, your husband was discharged under honorable conditions.
The Board, in its review of your, entire record, carefully
considered all potential mitigation, such as your late
husband’s youth and prior honorable enlisted service.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant showing that your husband did not resign
his commission because of his failure of the indoctrination
course and voluntary resignation. In view of the above, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Tt 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,
We '
W. DEAN PFE
Executive DA
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03745-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’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 late husband enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 14 December 1942 at the age of 17. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10065-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 8 March 1956 he was honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve with 13 years, 3 months, and 21 days of service. 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_11_22 CDT 2000
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. received the BCD. He was sentenced to forfeitures totalling $234 and a About a month later, on 25 June 1945, he received CM On 23 October 1945 he At this The Board also considered your The Board, in its review of your late husband’s entire record and your application,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04591-99
When COL B asked GYSGT M for proof of his assertion that you were involved with his wife, GYSGT M said that LT M had admitted the affair to him and said that the relationship had begun when both of you attended school in Rhode Island. not to contest the findings at that On 19 January 1996 you and your military counsel signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which you agreed disposition of the allegation against me at punishment (NJP) and proceeding, or on appeal of that that it was "expressly...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02498-99
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. At this time the BCD was ordered executed. The Board, in its review of your late husband's entire record and your application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as his youth and immaturity.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06704-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01664-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...
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 | CY2008 | 08788-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’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...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00874
ND02-00874 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant understood that a discharge under honorable conditions (general) is not the highest qualitative type of separation, and that while he may be entitled to the major portion of veteran's rights and benefits presently authorized for former officers whose service has been similar to his own, should any present...