DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECT~0N OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

			TJR
										Docket No: 1172-07
										 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 23 May 1972 at age 18. You served without disciplinary incident until 10 February 1973, when you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 99 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) . You were sentenced to a $450 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for three months. On 19 September 1973 you were again convicted by SPCM of two periods of UA totalling 108 days, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months and a suspended bad conduct discharge (BCD).

On 1]. June and 31 July 1974 you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for two periods of UA totalling three days. On 10
September 1974 you were advised to appear in civil court for
possession of marijuana.

On 10 March 1975 you were convicted by civil authorities of possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced to a $65 fine and probation. Shortly thereafter, on 12 May and again on 12 June 1975, you received NJP for disrespect and assault.

On 13 June 1975 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civil authorities. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB) . On 5 August 1975 an ADB recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 20 August 1975 your commanding officer also recommended discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civil authorities. On 25 August 1975 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 5 September 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, post service conduct, and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also considered your assertion that your discharge was the result of alcohol and drug abuse. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, which included lengthy periods of UA and alcohol and drug abuse. Further, you were given an opportunity to earn a better characterization of service when the BCD you received at an earlier court-martial was suspended, but you failed to do so as evidenced by your continued misconduct. Finally, alcohol and drug abuse are not excuses for misconduct, and disciplinary action and administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol and drug related offenses. 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