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

TJR
Docket No: 8027-03
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 he entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice
	
You served without disciplinary incident until 9 August 1975, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day period unauthorized absence (UA). About four months later, on 9 December 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for wrongful appropriation of a television and a camera. However, on 9 January 1976, the discharge authority denied this request and the foregoing charges were referred to trial by court-martial with an additional charge of larceny.

On 27 January 1976 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of theft of a camera valued at $150, $150 in cash from other Marines, and a one-day period of UA. You were sentenced to reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement at hard labor for six months, a $1,296 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD).

Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 20 April 1977 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, post service conduct, educational and training diplomas and certificates, and the letters of recommendation submitted in support of your case. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. 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.

2