DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ROARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~51 00

TJR
Docket No: 2435-06
27 September 2006

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 26 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 29 July 1977 at age 20. About two months later, on 22 September 1977, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession and use of marijuana and were awarded a $300 forfeiture of pay.

On 31 March and again on 26 December 1978 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and wrongful possession of barbiturates.

During the period from 23 March to 9 August 1979 you received three more NJPs for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA), two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, two specifications of failure to obey a awful order, missing the movement of your ship, and insubordination. On 26 September 1979 your commanding officer reported that you had been apprehended on two occasions for marijuana use aboard ship within one week of being recommended for an administrative separation. On 24
		October 1979 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM)
		of failure to obey a lawful order and sentenced to a $150
		forfeiture of pay and restriction and hard labor for 14 days.

During the period from 29 March to 4 September 1980 you received NJP on four more occasions for wrongful possession of hashish, marijuana, and an unspecified controlled substance, and two specifications of dereliction of duty.

On 5 September 1980 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After consulting with legal counsel you waived your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB) Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended a discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 12 October 1980 the discharge authority directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 27 October 1980 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 assertion that in spite of your alcoholism, you served honorably. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in 10 NJPs and a court-martial conviction, and included multiple instances of drug abuse. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you have submitted none, to support your assertion of alcoholism. Finally, even with documented evidence of alcoholism, the Board noted that alcohol abuse is not an excuse for misconduct and disciplinary action and administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol 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