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

TJR
Docket No: 4904-06
11 January 2007

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 9 January 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 22 March 1966 at age 19. You served without disciplinary incident until 16 August 1966, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey a lawful order. The punishment imposed was a $25 forfeiture of pay, restriction for one week, and extra duty for two weeks.

On 1 August 1968 you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of a seven day period of UA, sale of government property, wrongful possession of habit ~forming drugs, theft of government property/hypodermic syringes, and sale of habit forming drugs. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for nine months, a $810 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
During the period from 26 March to 11 April 1969 you received NJP on two occasions for a one day period of UA, absence from your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful order. You were also convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.

On 14 April 1969 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). You did, however, submit a written request for restoration to duty. On 16 April 1969 your commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 13 May 1969 the discharge authority approved this recommendation but directed separation be held in abeyance. You were then placed on probation and warned that any further disciplinary incidents would result in an other than honorable discharge.

On 19 August 1969 you were absent from your appointed place of duty. Although no disciplinary action was taken for this misconduct, your commanding officer again recommended that you be administratively separated. This recommendation stated, in part, as follows:

Recommend undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to 19 August 1969 absence from appointed place of duty. Although absence from appointed place of duty in itself was minor, Member’s attitude and performance was less than desirable.... his attitude was undermining the morale of the unit..., he had been given ample opportunity and individual counselling to change his attitude, which he failed to do.

Subsequently, the discharge authority directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness, and on 22 September 1969 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, total period of service, post service conduct, and assertion that your misconduct was the result of alcohol abuse.

It also considered your assertion that you served good, time which warrants an upgrade of 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 which resulted in three NJPs and two court-martial convictions, and included drug abuse. The Board also noted that you were extremely fortunate that the GCM did not sentence you to a punitive discharge and that you were placed on probation during the administrative separation processing. However, you failed to take advantage of these opportunities to earn a better characterization of service. 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director