DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
		      BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

SMW
Docket No: 10546-06
16 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 15 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.

On 7 October 1965 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. During the period from 26 April to 16 June 1966 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions totaling about 45 days. On 6 July 1966 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of the two UA’s. On 7 November 1966 you began another period of UA that ended on 28 December 1966, a period of about 51 days. On 9 February 1967 you requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for this period of UA. At that time, you consulted with counsel and acknowledged the consequences of receiving such a discharge. The commanding officers (CO’s) endorsement to your request stated that he had counseled you on two separate occasions and warned you about the seriousness of your request for an undesirable discharge and the effect this action could have on your life, but you. were adamant on your decision. On 16 February 1967 the separation authority approved your request for an undesirable discharge. On February 1967 you were separated with an undesirable discharge 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 contentions that you did not agree with the type of discharge and had no idea of the implications of such a discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the repetitive UA’s. 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 contentions, the record shows that you requested an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial even though your CO advised you not to do so, and you acknowledged the consequences of receiving an undesirable discharge. 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