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

CRS 
Docket No: 6387-05
											4 May 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 19 April 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 March 1968. The record reflects that you received nonjudicial punishment and were convicted by special court-martial. The offenses included unauthorized absences totaling 81 days. Subsequently, on 9 July 1971 you were separated under honorable conditions and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve, On 8 July 1974 you received an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve.

Character of service is based, in part, on one’s conduct and proficiency averages, both of which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your conduct and proficiency averages were 3.3 and 3.9, respectively. A minimum average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service, given your two disciplinary actions that included unauthorized absences of more than two months, and especially your failure to attain the required average in conduct. Clearly your record supported only a characterization of under honorable conditions on 9 July 1971, but for some reason you erroneously received on 8 July 1974 a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 PFIEFFER
Executive Director