DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
						
						SMW
						Docket No: 5685-06
											3 November 2006

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 1 November 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 Navy on 4 January 1980 at age 17 with parental consent. During the period from 6 May to 30 October 1980 you received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s). Your offenses included two instances of larceny, failure to report an offense, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and a day of unauthorized absence (UA). On 21 November 1980 a medical evaluation stated that you disclosed daily use of marijuana and hashish, and requested a drug exemption. On 24 December 1980 your request was approved.

On 25 December 1980 you began a period of UA that ended on 28 December 1980, a period of about three days. On 23 January 1981 you received NJP for this UA and 14 instances of missing muster. On 23 January 1981 a preliminary substance abuse report directed you to attend 20 Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) meetings before beginning another program. On 4 March 1981 you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable discharge. However, on 6 and 20 March 1981 you received NJP for two instances of disobedience of a lawful order.

On 20 March 1981 your commanding officer recommended you for an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you were advised of the consequences of such a discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 14 April 1981 you were UA for four hours, but it appears that no disciplinary action was taken. On 27 April 1981 the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 1 May 1981 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of assault, breaking restriction, and communicating a threat. On 4 May 1981 you were separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board also considered your post-service accomplishments, and the contention that your drug addiction began while in the Navy and your misconduct was caused by drug use. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, that continued even after you were warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable discharge. The Board also noted that you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Regarding your contentions, use of drugs does not excuse misconduct, and a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveals a number of post-service convictions by civil authorities. 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.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director