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

								TJR
										Docket No: 1145-07 
										5 December 2007

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 4 December 2007. 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 3 October 1972 at age 17 and served for nearly a year without disciplinary incident. However, on 3 October 1973, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 29 day period of unauthorized absence (UA), disrespect, and assault. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months and a $400 forfeiture of pay. Shortly thereafter, on 4 December 1973, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction for 14 days.

On 9 February 1975 you were convicted by Japanese authorities of violation of the Narcotic Control Law as evidenced by wrongful possession of substances containing hydrochloric diacetylmorphine and 22 packages of heroin wrapped in tin foil and one package contained in a vinyl bag. You were sentenced to imprisonment at forced labor for eight to 14 months and court costs.

On 21 October 1974 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB) . On 28 October 1974 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civilian conviction by Japanese authorities as evidenced by heroin possession. On 31 October 1974 your commanding officer also recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 15 November 1974 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed separation under other than honorable conditions, and on 1 May 1975 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 and the passage of time. It also considered your assertions that your discharge should be upgraded because you were originally considered for a physical disability discharge, and that you should no longer suffer the consequences of a bad discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct in both the military and civilian communities, which resulted in NJP, a court-martial conviction, and conviction by foreign authorities. Further, no discharge is automatically upgraded due solely to the passage of time. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion of consideration for a physical disability discharge. 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