DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100

TRG
Docket No: 5295-05
23 February 2006

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 14 February 2006. 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.

On 15 November 1970 after a period of service in an enlisted status, you were commissioned in the Marine Corps Reserve. You then served well on active duty and as a drilling reservist for many years. On 12 June 1982 you were promoted to major.

In a letter dated 30 July 1986 you requested transfer to the Retired Reserve. However, on 3 September 1986 you were informed that your transfer to the Retired Reserve was being held in abeyance pending the outcome of a board of inquiry.

Subsequently, you submitted your resignation and stated that you understood that the discharge could be characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and a determination would be made as to whether or not you would be retired in the grade of major. You stated, in part, as follows concerning the allegations against you:

The basis for the intended administrative
separation for cause came out of interviews conducted
by a Defense Investigative Service Special Agent on 27 and 31 March 1986. I had earlier submitted to a polygraph examination on 23 May 1985 .... during which I initially revealed the incriminating matters. At the time, I was seeking to obtain a contractor’s employee security clearance for use in my civilian occupation as a Field Service Engineer. The interviews conducted in March 1986 by the DIS Special Agent were a follow-up to the polygraph, and on 31 March, I signed a sworn written statement which contained particulars as to my drug and homosexual involvement and intentional misrepresentation or omission of material fact in obtaining appointment and in official written documents or official oral statements.

After review, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) recommended approval of your resignation but noted that even if discharged, you would be entitled to retired pay at age 60. It was further recommended that the Secretary of the Navy find that you had not served satisfactorily in the grade of major. On 18 March 1987, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy approved the recommendation and you were discharged that same day.

On 6 August 2005 you became 60 years of age and began receiving your reserve retired pay as a former member. The pay was computed using the pay scale for a captain (0-3) with 4,783 retirement points. Consequently, you are receiving $1746 per month.

You are requesting that your record be corrected to show that you transferred to the Retired List in the grade of captain because HQMC told you that you would receive your retired pay at age 60. Nevertheless the pertinent documents clearly show that you were informed that you would receive retired pay as a former member. The Board concluded that your discharge was proper as issued and a correction to your record to show that you transferred to the Retired List is not warranted.

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

2
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

						W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director