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

SMW
Docket No: 9204-06
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 29 September 1978 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19 and served without incident until 9 January 1980, when you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct that resulted in a non-recommendation for promotion. During the period from 11 January 1980 to 18 March 1981 you received five nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s). Your offenses included possession of a false identification card, a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA), violation of a lawful order, drunk on duty, and absence from your appointed place of duty. On 2 June 1981 you were counseled regarding frequent tardiness, and warned that further infractions would result in disciplinary action. On 29 June 1981 you received NJP for two instances of UA totaling about four days.

On 5 August 1981 you were charged with four instances of disobedience of a lawful order and two instances of disrespect. On 12 August 1981 you requested an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for these offenses. At that time, you consulted with counsel and acknowledged the consequences of receiving such a discharge. On 14 August 1981 the separation authority approved your request for an other than honorable discharge. On 26 August 1981 you were separated with an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board also considered your contention that you did not realize that you were an alcoholic while in the Marine Corps and regret your actions. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the repetitive misconduct. Furthermore, the Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. Regarding your contention, although the record shows there were several instances of alcohol related misconduct, there is no evidence in the record to show that you were ever diagnosed as being an alcoholic. But even if there was such a diagnosis, it would not excuse your misconduct. Finally, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. 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