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

TJR
Docket No: 7531-03
9 August 2004

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 3 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, he Board determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy	September 1972 a and session without disciplinary incident un ii 25 October 1973 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a nine day period of unauthorized absence (UA). The punishment imposed was extra duty and restriction for 10 days and a $100 forfeiture of pay.

On 24 January 1974, after admitting you had use numerous illegal drugs after enlisting, and had used marijuana as recently as 22 January 1974, you were granted an exemption in accordance with a drug rehabilitation program. Also on 24 January, and again on 24 February 1974, you received NJP for to periods of UA totalling 18 days and three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty. On 12 April 1974 you were convicted by summary courtmartial (SCM) of 16 periods of absence from your appointed place of duty and were sentenced to restriction for 16 days and reduction to paygrade E-1, which was suspended for six months. Shortly thereafter, on 24 April 1974, you received your fourth NJP for eight periods of absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-1.

Your commanding officer informed the Chief of Naval Personnel that although you were not drug dependent and detoxification was not necessary in your case, you had not consistently cooperated with the drug rehabilitation program, and were being considered for discharge. Shortly thereafter, on 29 April 1974, you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded extra duty for three days.

Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of convenience of the government due to your lack of potential to become a petty officer. On 8 July 1974 the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an honorable discharge, and on 15 August 1974 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your claim that although you wasted the time and money of the government, you were discharged at your request and because of personnel cut-backs. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, which resulted in five NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, the Board noted that there is no evidence in the record and you submitted none, to support your claim. 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,

2