DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

SMW
Docket No: 3387-07
1 November 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 31 October 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 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable service. During the period 3 November to 22 December 1975, you had three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) and a suspended punishment was vacated. Your offenses included destruction of government property, a day of unauthorized absence, and failure to obey a lawful order. On 19 July 1977, you were counseled regarding your substandard performance of duty and frequent tardiness. On 2 August 1977, you were counseled regarding your continued tardiness. On 4 October 1977, you completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment. On 13 October 1977, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and on 5 July 1978, you were assigned to the weight control program. On 12 July 1978, you had NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 21 July 1978, you were not prepared for a uniform inspection, and on 4 August 1978, you received an unsatisfactory on your uniform inspection. On 18 December 1978, you completed another alcohol rehabilitation program and were found to exceed weight standards.

On 13 February 1979, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation action by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability because of failure to conform to weight standards. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a general discharge, did not submit a statement, and agreed with the discharge recommendation. On 22 March 1979, the separation authority approved the separation by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability and directed a general discharge. On 9 April 1979, you were so discharged.

Characterization of service is determined by overall proficiency and conduct mark averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis and overall service record. Your final proficiency and conduct mark averages were 4.5 and 4.06, respectively. Averages of 3.8 in proficiency and 4.0 in conduct were required to form the basis for a fully honorable characterization of service. However, given your four NJP’s and numerous occasions that you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, the separation authority determined that your service warranted a general characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your prior period of honorable service and overall service record. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that although your proficiency and conduct mark averages met the requirements to form the basis for a fully honorable characterization of service, these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the four NJP’s and numerous occasions for which you were counseled. 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.

The Board noted that as a result of your prior honorable service, you
may be eligible for more veteran’s benefits than a general
characterization of service allows. You should contact the nearest office of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs if you desire clarification about your eligibility for those benefits.

Sincerely,

	W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

3