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

SMW
Docket No: 43-06
7 September 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 6 September 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 13 October 1969 at age 18. On 10 February 1970 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for about a month of unauthorized absence (UA). On 4 February 1971 you began a UA that ended on 6 October 1971, a period of about 244 days. On 22 December 1971 you requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the charge of UA. However, your request was disapproved and on 17 January 1972 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of the 244 days of UA. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor, forfeitures of pay, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). However, on 7 February 1972 the BCD was suspended for a period of 12 months.

During the period from 31 May 1973 to 11 February 1974 you received three NJP’s. The offenses included a day of UA, two instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and two instances of missing the movement of your unit.

On 10 September 1974 you were counseled regarding your frequent misconduct an~ advised that you were not recommended for
reenlistment. On 10 September 1974, you were released from active duty under honorable conditions due to the expiration of your enlistment. Subsequently, you were issued a general discharge upon completion of your military obligation.

Characterization of service is determined, in part, by military conduct averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your final military conduct average was 3.7. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and numerous contentions. However, the Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant reeharacterization of your discharge given your disciplinary record, specifically, four NJP’s and a conviction by SPCM for offenses that included more than nine months of UA during the Vietnam conflict. Furthermore, you failed to attain the conduct average required for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board also noted that your disciplinary infractions were sufficient to warrant an undesirable or punitive discharge, and that you were fortunate to have received a general discharge. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is 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 record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

2