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

SMW
Docket No: 1980-07
7 December 2007

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 5 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.

On 14 September 2000, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent and served without incident until 9 December 2002, when you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for altering an identification card. On 10 March 2003, you were not recommended for promotion due to your lack of leadership. On 5 April 2003, you were counseled regarding your refusal to stand watch, and warned that further infractions may result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (0TH) discharge. On 15 June 2003, you were counseled regarding your failure to obey a lawful order, and again warned of the consequences of further infractions. On 18 January 2004, you were counseled for punching a door, which resulted in your medical disqualification to attend scheduled training. On 5 May 2004, you had NJP for disrespect, three instances of disobedience of a lawful order, and driving under the influence. Based on the information currently contained in the record, you were in an unauthorized absence (tJA) status during the period 12 May to 15 June 2004, a period of about 34 days. However, other than your reduction in rank to private on 16 June 2004, disposition of that offense is not currently contained in the record. On 9 September 2004, you were counseled regarding your pattern of misconduct. On 23 October 2004, you began another UA that ended on
25 January 2005, a period of about 94 days. Disposition of that offense is not currently contained in the record. On
15 February 2005, you were counseled again regarding your pattern of misconduct. On 13 December 2005, you were released from active duty under honorable conditions by reason of completion of required active service.

Characterization of service is determined by a service members conduct, actions, performance, and marks assigned on a periodic basis. Minimum acceptable average proficiency and conduct marks of 3.0 and 4.0, respectively, are required to form the basis for a fully honorable characterization of service. Given your disciplinary record, repeated warnings, and about 128 days of total UA, it appears that your commanding officer determined that your service did not warrant an honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and service in Iraq. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your failure to abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which apparently resulted in your failure to attain a service record that warrants an honorable characterization of service. Finally, the Board found that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, since most service members with a pattern of misconduct such as yours receive an 0TH 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.

							W.	DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director