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

SMW
Docket No: 1416-06
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 Navy on 2 November 1972 at age 19. During the period from 9 March to 27 November 1973 you received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s). The offenses included five instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 25 days, missing the movement of your ship, and wrongful appropriation. On 15 December 1973 you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an undesirable discharge. However, during the period from 2 January 1974 to 26 February 1975 you received NJP and were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) for three instances of UA totaling about 39 days.

On 11 March 1975 you were advised that you were being considered for administrative separation and warned that further infractions would result in disciplinary action or administrative separation.. On 6 May 1975 you were counseled again and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. On 11 July and 20 August 1975 you received NJP’s for absence from your appointed place of duty and three instances of UA totaling about two days.

On 2 September 1975 your commanding officer initiated administrative separation action by reason of unfitness. In connection with this processing, you elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), but you later agreed to waive that right if your commanding officer recommended a general discharge. On 22 September 1975 you were given an oral reprimand for disobedience of a lawful order. On 25 September 1975 you requested an immediate discharge in lieu of awaiting final action from the separation authority. On 1 October 1975 you were separated with a general discharge.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your contentions that your separation was unfair and you were a good soldier. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service due to your repetitive misconduct that included six NJP’s and a conviction by SPCM for offenses that included more than two months of UA. The Board noted that you were fortunate to have received a general discharge, since your misconduct could have resulted in an undesirable discharge. Therefore, the Board concluded that the characterization of your service 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