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

SMW
Docket No: 6450-06
9 November2006

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 8 November 2006. 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 27 December 1956 at age 17 with parental consent. During the period from 31 July 1957 to 24 July 1959 you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) and were convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) and special court-martial (SPCM). Your offenses included disrespect, being drunk and incapacitated for duty, dereliction in the performance of your duties, larceny of $206, and being drunk and disorderly while in uniform in public.

On 21 November 1959 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) and missed the sailing of your ship. On 7 December 1959 you were arrested by civil authorities on charges of assault and drunkenness. You were subsequently returned to military authorities after being in a UA status for about 16 days. On 23 December 1959 you were convicted by SPCM of assault. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor, forfeitures of play, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). However, the BCD was disapproved on review.

On 9 February and 4 May 1960 you were convicted by SCM of disobedience of a lawful order and missing the movement of your ship.

On 19 May 1960 your commanding officer recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you waived the right to hearing in front of three officers, but you submitted a statement to the separation authority requesting a general discharge. On 22 June 1960 a discharge board found that you were unfit for further service due to frequent discreditable involvement, and recommended an undesirable discharge. On 29 June 1960 the separation authority approved this recommendation and directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 15 July 1960 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. The Board also considered your letters of reference, your contentions concerning events that led to your discharge, and your belief that you would receive a general discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your repetitive misconduct that resulted in three NJP’s and six court-martial convictions. The Board also noted that your misconduct continued even after the BCD awarded by the SPCM of 23 December 1959 was disapproved, thus giving you an opportunity to earn a better characterization of service. The Board further noted that you waived the right to a hearing, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Regarding your letters of reference, a Federal Bureau of Investigation report of 6 November 2006 shows that you have been convicted on several occasions since you were discharged. Finally, the record clearly shows that you acknowledged that you were being processed for an undesirable discharge, and submitted a statement requesting a general discharge instead of an undesirable discharge. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and 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 injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director