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

SJN
Docket No: 07426-06
11 May 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 2 May 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 7 March 1975 at age 17. On 16 May 1975 and 13 August 1976 received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and a brief period of unauthorized absence (UA). You remained on active duty until 31 December 1980 when you were not recommended for reenlistment due to your deficiencies in professional performance and military behavior that resulted in your failure to meet professional growth criteria. At that time, you were released from active duty at the expiration of your enlistment and issued a general discharge based on your conduct and proficiency marks.

Characterization of service is based in part on conduct and proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your conduct average was 2.8. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and overall record of service, and your contentions of wrongdoing by your command. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given the two NJP’s, your commanding officers non-recommendation for retention, and especially your failure to attain the required average in conduct. Concerning your contentions, there is no evidence in the record to support it, and you submitted no such evidence. 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 PFIEFFER
						Executive Director

2