DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 1719-11
8 November 2011
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 2 November 2011. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
The record reflects that your father enlisted in the Navy on 5
June 1951 at the age of 19. He served without disciplinary
incident until 14 duly 1952, when he received captain’s mast (CM)
for being absent from his appointed place of duty. ,
In January 1953 civil authorities issued an arrest warrant for
your father for armed robbery. On 15 June 1953 he again received
CM for being absent from his appointed place of duty. As a
result of the civil arrest warrant, he was subsequently released
from military custody to stand trial in civil court. On 19 June
1953 he was convicted, by civil authorities, of robbery by force
and violence. However, his case was officially filed without a
sentence.
Although your father's commanding officer recommended he be
retained in the Navy, in July 1953 he was administratively
processed for discharge by reason of unfitness. The discharge
authority directed the commanding officer to issue your father an
undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness as evidenced by his
overall record of misconduct and civil conviction. On 4 November
1953 your father was issued an undesirable discharge.
The Board, in its review of your application and the entire
record of your late father, and carefully weighed all potentially
Mitigating factors, such as his youth and period of satisfactory
service, and your desire to upgrade his discharge in recognition
of his service and for burial honors. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of his discharge because of the seriousness of
his repetitive misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
\yhea
W. DEAN PFETRFE
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08098-07
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. On 18 March 1946 he was convicted by civil authorities of robbery and sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement. 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 02898-01
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. of officers convened on 20 January 1955 and recommended that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of You declined to submit a Thereafter, you were notified that pre- The Board concluded that the A current FBI report obtained by the Board In its review of your application...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2394 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2015. 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 | CY2007 | 03411-07
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 20 November 1950 at age 18. After review, the discharge authority...
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 | CY2001 | 04728-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, Board requesting, in effect, that his naval to show a more favorable discharge than the discharge on 30 December 1953. , Petitioner, a (a) applied to this record be corrected undesirable The Board, consisting of Messrs. Milner, Harrison, and Shy 2. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 15 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05074-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. Your case was forwarded, and on 11 January 1978 the separation authority approved the recommendation for an undesirable discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015318
The civil court sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 to 10 years. However, his service records show on 1 September 1955, the Commanding General, Headquarters, Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of section IV, Army Regulation 615-366 (Enlisted Personnel Discharges) by reason of civil conviction with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 13 November 1962, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for an upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051945C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 30 August 1974 and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to civil authorities and was returned to his unit on 19 September 1974.