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

TJR
Docket No: 7995-03
17 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 10 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on January 1971 at age 17 During the period from 1 April to 29 October 1971 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for sleeping on post. You were also in an unauthorized absence (UA) status during this period for a total of seven days. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken for this period of UA.

On 9 June 1972 and again a year later, on 6 June 1973, you received NJP for a five day period of UA and failure to go to your appointed place of duty.

You received your fifth NJP on 27 February 1974 for two periods of UA totalling 15 days. The punishment imposed was an unspecified forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-3, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 60 days. About five months later, on 25 July 1974, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 43 day period of UA and were sentenced to reduction to paygrade E-2.

On 19 September 1974 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.

The record reflects that during the period from 25 September to 13 November 1974 you were in a UA status on three occasions for a total of 28 days. The record does not, however, reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for these periods of UA.

Subsequently, the discharge authority approved the foregoing recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 18 November 1974 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 and your claim that you were told that you could change the characterization of your discharge. It also considered your assertion that your discharge was unjust because you were separated only two weeks before you would have completed your four-year term of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive misconduct, which resulted in five NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, when your lost time is taken into account. you would have been required to serve until the end of May before you were separated at the expiration of your enlistment. 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