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

SMW
Docket No: 6405-06
9 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 8 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.

On 7 July 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18, and on 31 October 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order and larceny, specifically, theft of a pair of boots valued at $50.00. On 1 November 1978 suspended punishment from the NJP was vacated for unspecified misconduct.

On 7 January 1978 you reported for duty aboard the USS SEADRZAGON. On 30 July 1979 and 4 January 1980 you received NJP for use of provoking speech or gestures, assault on a police officer, an unspecified period of unauthorized absence (UA), and misbehavior of a sentinel.

On 10 July 1980 you reported to the Naval Regional Medical Clinic in Hawaii, and received NJP on that same date for an unspecified period of UA and insubordinate conduct. On 25 August 1980 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 14 day period of UA, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful order. On 10 October 1980 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. On 17 October 1980 you received NJP for dereliction in the performance of your duties.

On 13 March 1981 you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. On 1 June 1981 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of three UA’s totaling about eight days, eight instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and three instances of breaking restriction.

On 8 July 1981 your commanding officer initiated administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 31 July 1981 you requested an immediate discharge pending the separation authority’s decision, but it appears that no further action was taken on your request because you received NJP on that same date for six instances of disrespect, use of provoking words, breach of peace, and two instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 29 August 1981 the separation authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 22 September 1981 you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and a brief period of UA. On 2 October 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 contention that your misconduct only began after you were reassigned from the USS SEADRAGON. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your 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. Finally, regarding your contention, the record shows that your misconduct began about three months after you enlisted and continued during your entire enlistment. 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