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

TJR
Docket No: 5149-03
18 May 2004

MR  XXXX

Dear Mr. XXXX:

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 f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 14 November 1980 after three years of prior honorable service. You continued to serve without disciplinary incident until 5 October 1983 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction for 14 days and a $75 forfeiture of pay. On 16 December 1983 you received NJP for uttering bad checks valued at over $1,100, wrongful appropriation, and a 28 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). The punishment imposed was a suspended reduction to paygrade E-4.

On 26 January 1984 the 16 December 1983 suspended reduction was vacated due to your continued misconduct. On that same day you received NJP for a 13 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded extra duty for 14 days, a $200 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade E-3, which was suspended for six months. On 1 March 1984 you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded a $100 forfeiture of pay and restriction for 14 days. Shortly thereafter, on 10 April 1984, you received your fifth NJP for a one day period of UA, absence from your appointed place of duty, and two specifications of disobedience. The punishment imposed was a $334 forfeiture of pay and reduction to paygrade E-2.

On 18 April 1984 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. On 25 April 1984 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Subsequently, on 6 May 1984, the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions, and on 18 May 1984 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, post service conduct, and your assertion that your discharge should be changed because of medical reasons, specifically, alcoholism. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your frequent misconduct of a discreditable nature with military authorities, which resulted in five NJPs. Concerning your assertion of alcoholism, alcohol abuse is not an excuse for misconduct, and disciplinary action and administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol related offenses. Further, you have submitted no evidence to show you were an alcoholic at the time of your service, or that any of your offenses were alcohol related, and the record contains no such evidence. 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 f or 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

2