DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 00456-12
25 October 2012
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
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 24 October 2012. 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 22 September 1964. On 6 August
1965, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status for two days. On 28 September
1965, you received NJP for being UA for seven days. On 23
November 1965, you were convicted by a special court-martial
(SPCM) of being UA on two occasions totaling 14 days. You were
sentenced to a forfeiture of $60, and restriction for 30 days.
On 13 January 1966, you received NUP for being UA for one day,
and failure to obey a lawful order. On 29 March 1966, you were
convicted by a SPCM of being UA for 26 days. You were sentenced
to a forfeiture of $130, reduction in pay grade, and confinement
at hard labor for two months. On 17 June 1966, you received NUP
for being UA for over 24 hours. On 1 July 1966, you were
convicted by your third SPCM of being absent from your appointed
place of duty, disrespect toward a petty officer, and disobeying
a lawful order. You were sentenced to reduction in pay grade,
and confinement at hard labor for four months. On 28 July 1966,
a mental health evaluation was conducted and you admitted that
you wanted out of the Navy and resorted to frequent acts of
homosexuality for monetary gain. On 1 September 1966, you
provided a statement to a special agent during an investigation
that you had engaged in homosexual acts during your time of
service with males for compensation. On 19 September 1966, you
were informed that you were being administratively separated by
reason of unfitness (homosexuality) as evidenced by your own
admission. You then elected to waive your rights to consult
counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an
administrative board (ADB). Your commanding officer forwarded
his recommendation to discharge you by reason of unfitness with
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 30 September 1966,
the discharge authority directed that you be separated with an
OTH discharge by reason of unfitness. You were So discharged on
18 October 1966.
The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth,
and record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your
characterization of discharge, given your record of four NUP's,
conviction by three SPCMs of misconduct, and commission of
homosexual acts for compensation. In this regard, the Board
noted that you admitted to participating in homosexual acts
under aggravating circumstances by receiving compensation. The
Board also noted that you waived your right to an ADB, your best
opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. The Board concluded your discharge was proper as
issued and that no change is warranted. 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 inj] Sti ce.
Sincerely,
TRB. Ze
ROBERT D ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3639 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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 | CY2010 | 05791-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. 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 | CY2012 | 01092 12
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 | CY2007 | 11339-07
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. On 15 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 64 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03549-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 February 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11436-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘ application on 20 July 2011. 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 | 02068-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2011. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00214-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 13 October 2011. On 13 December 1961, you received NUP for three incidents of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. - 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 | CY2012 | 01145 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 November 2012. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record of three NJP’s, two convictions by SPCM’s, and by two SCM’s of serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...