DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 4222-04
21 March 2005

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 16 March 2005. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 7 December 1971. The record reflects that you received five nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included unauthorized absences totaling three days, absence from your appointed place of duty on two occasions, willful disobedience of a lawful order, and failure to obey a lawful order. Subsequently, in April 1973, reports from the Naval Investigative Service and another law enforcement agency stated that you had robbed another Marine; and were in possession of three hypodermic syringes, a spoon and two needles. The record shows that you were placed in confinement on 16 April 1973 and remained in that status until 20 June 1973.

on i June 1973 an administrative discharge board recommended that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 27 June 1973 you received an undesirable discharge.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and service in Vietnam. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of frequent involvement with military authorities, and apparently robbed a fellow service member and were involved in drug use. In this regard, the Board noted that you were the subject of five disciplinary actions within a period of less than two years. Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that no change to the discharge is warranted. Concerning your contention that Agent Orange caused you to suffer from diabetes and posttraumatic stress disorder, there is no evidence in your record that any physical problem caused or contributed to your misconduct. Further, since you were not discharged solely due to personal use or possession of drugs, the Laird and Packard memoranda do not apply to your case.

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 PFIEFFER
								Executive Director

2