OHEPARPTMENT OF THE NAVY
i et Cr}
BHAPR FOR CORRECTION OF NAWAI RFC ORNS
01S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUlteE 10014
Docket No: 12091-14,
6637-12
24 November 2014
This is in reference to your applica tien E6y 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, again considered your
application on 20 November 2014 based upon a request from the
Assistant General Counsel for Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The panel consisting of Messrs.
Hicks, Spooner, and Swarnes voted unanimously to deny your
request. In this regard, your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and
procedures applicable to the proceedings of this B ard. The
documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
pees
application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.
In addition to the foregoing doc umentation, the Board considered
the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) decisional document, ND-
78-01071/780111 which resulted from their review on 12 February
1979. A copy of this decisional document is enclosed for your
information. The Board also reviewed the correspondence and
enclosures from your attorney in which he requests an upgrade of
your discharge.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable mat erial error or
injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred
with the NDRB decisional document.
The record reflects that you enlisted in the Navy on 11 April
1940 at the age of 18. You served beak disciplinary incident
for about one year and four months. However, during the period
from 18 August 1941 to 24 October 1944 you received captain’s
mast (CM) on five occasions. Your misconduct included being
absent from leave on two occasions, being late for muster,
misbehaving in a motor launch underway, and disobedience.
your record further reflects civil involvement in June 1945. In
this regard, you stole an automobile, robbed a bus driver, and
held up a gas station. Shortly thereafter, on 4 August 1945, you
were convicted by civil authorities of unarmed robbery.
Subsequently, in October 1945, you were processed for an
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction. Presumably, after waiving your procedural rights,
your commanding officer recommended you be issued an undesirable
discharge by reason of misconduct due to the civil conviction.
The discharge authority approved this recommendation on 19
October 1945, and directed your commanding officer to issue you
an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct. On 1 November
1945, while in the custody of civil authorities, you were so
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, service in combat
(to include being a Pearl Harbor survivor), and post service
conduct. 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. With that being said, no discharge is automatically
upgraded due solely to an individual's good post service conduct,
combat service, youth, or the passage of time. The Board
concluded that you received the proper characterization of
service. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making sts decision in your case. In this regard, it is
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity
attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying
1 naval record, the burden is on
he existence of probable material
for a correction of an officia
the applicant to demonstrate t
error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Fxecutive Director
Enclosures
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 | CY2011 | 04126-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 19 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applications, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board noted that your characterization of service was changed to general under honorable conditions, but concluded that a further change was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3686 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. On 20 June 1977 a panel of the Naval Discharge Review Board {NDRB}, convened under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and upgraded your undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7715 13
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. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be upgraded due to your acts of misconduct. 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 | CY2009 | 10278-09
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. Your case was forwarded and it was directed that you receive an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | CY2002 | 02770-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. April 1945 you received CM on two occasions for missing muster, On 22 March 1945 the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct On 3 February 1945 the confinement You were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00458-11
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 reflects that on 12 August 1977, under the Department of Defense Discharge (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), the characterization of your undesirable discharge was changed to general under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06450-06
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 27 December 1956 at age 17 with parental consent. On 23 December 1959 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2931 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 38 October 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statuces, regulations, and policies. With regard :to your contention of suffering from PTSD, there is no evidence in the record to Support it, and you submitted no such evidence.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6091 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 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...