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

TJR
									    Docket No: 2518-06 
									    13 October 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—rnember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 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 3 May 1983 at age 24 and served without disciplinary incident for more than two years. However, on 28 June 1985 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $177 forfeiture of pay and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 12 September 1986 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 28 day period of unauthorized absence (UA), absence from your appointed place of duty, and eight specifications of wrongfully uttering worthless checks in the amount of $1,092. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 90 days, a $1,200 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 22 December 1986 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 assertion of retaliation after requesting a transfer. It also considered your assertion that you were told by military legal counsel that you could never appeal your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertions of retaliation or misrepresentation by legal counsel. 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