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

TJR
											Docket No: 5719-06												15 February 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 13 February 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 27 October 1966 at age 17 and served without disciplinary incident until 16 June 1967, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. About six months later, on 22 December 1967, you received NJP for using provoking speech/gestures, failure to obey a lawful order, absence from your appointed place of duty, and carrying a concealed weapon.

During the period from 7 August to 4 September 1968 you received NJP on three occasions for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA), failure to obey a lawful order, and absence from your appointed place of duty. On 26 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and drunk and disorderly conduct. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a $280 detention of pay. On 26 and 27 August 1969 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and wrongful possession of a false and/or unauthorized pass.

Subsequently, 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. Shortly thereafter, your commanding officer recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 11 September 1969 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an undesirable discharge, and on 25 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 and assertion that you were forced to enlist. It further considered your assertion that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) would not change your discharge because of the statute of limitations. 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 seven NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion that you were forced to enlist. Finally, the DVA has no authority to change a discharge. 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,

2