DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100

SMW
Docket No: 8988-06
26 February 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 23 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.

On 27 December 1974 you enlisted in the Navy at age 19. You then served for about two years without incident.

On 9 November 1976 you were convicted by civil court of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and speeding. On 12 November 1976 a medical evaluation found that you were not dependent on drugs. On 19 November 1976 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 24 November 1976 you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and on
13 December 1976 suspended punishment from the NJP was vacated due to continued misconduct.

On 14 December 1976 you began a 28 day period of UA that ended on 11 January 1977. On 15 February 1977 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of this UA. On 6 May 1977 you began a 10 day period of UA that ended on 16 May 1977. On 27 May 1977 you received NJP for the 10-day UA and three instances of absence from your appointed place of duty. On 30 June 1977 you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation.

During the period from 1 July to 14 December 1977 you received three more NJP’s. Your offenses included three instances of absence from your appointed place of duty and three instances of UA totaling about 13 days. On 14 December 1977 your commanding officer (CO) initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that the separation could result in an other than honorable discharge and elected the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 6 January 1978 an ADB found that you had committed misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement and recommended an other than honorable discharge. On 17 March 1978 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 24 March 1978 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. The Board also considered the letter of reference from a drug and alcohol treatment facility, and your statement to the effect that your post-service conduct has not been perfect but you are now a productive member of society. 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 administrative separation. 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

2