DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

FC
Docket No: 1187-04
9 August 2004

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 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 4 August 2004. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 29 May 1946 at age 18. You served without disciplinary incident until 28 July 1947, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two brief periods of unauthorized absence (UA), and were awarded extra duty. On 30 July 1947 you received a second NJP for missing muster, and were awarded extra duty. On 1 October 1948 you were convicted by deck court (DC) of three brief periods of UA, and were sentenced to restriction. During the period from 13 December 1948 to 3 May 1949 you received three more NJPs for two instances of disobedience, two brief periods of UA, dereliction of duty, and leaving your station without permission. On 10 June 1949 you were convicted by a second DC of breaking and entering a provisions issue room while on a security watch. You were sentenced to extra duty and a forfeiture of pay. During the period from 14 June to 29 July 1949 you received two more NJPs for absence from duty, missing a commanding officer’s inspection
and restricted men’s muster, disobedience, dereliction of duty, and being out of uniform.

On 4 August 1949 you were notified of administrative separation processing and you elected to make a written statement. Subsequently, the commanding officer recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 11 August 1949 the separation authority directed that you be transferred to the Philippines for separation processing for an undesirable discharge.

On 24 August 1949 you reported to the Treasure Island Naval Station, San Francisco, California in a disciplinary status awaiting transportation to the Philippines. On 30 August 1949 you broke arrest and commenced a period of UA that was terminated when you returned on 7 October 1949. On 19 October 1949 you were convicted by general court martial (GCM) of breaking arrest and a 38-day period of UA. You were sentenced to 10 months of confinement, a reduction to paygrade E-l, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After completion of appellate review, on 19 October 1949 you received a BCD.

In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth, the length of time that has passed since you were discharged from the Navy and your unsubstantiated contention that you were not represented at the GCM. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your extensive disciplinary record consisting of seven NJPs, and convictions by two DCs and a GCM. Regarding your contention that you were not represented at the GCM, the Board is prohibited by law from reviewing the findings of a court martial and must restrict its review to determining whether the sentence of a court martial should be reduced as a matter of clemency. 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 injustice.

Sincerely,