DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-51OO

SMW
Docket No: 10611-06
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 22 May 1987 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. You were subsequently granted a waiver to remain in the Navy after your accession urinalysis tested positive for an illegal substance.

On 31 January 1988 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and wrongful appropriation. On 6 March 1988 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 12 March 1988 you received NJP for disobedience of a lawful order and three instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 4 May 1988 you were convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of two instances of unauthorized absence (UA).

On 29 May 1988 your commanding officer (CO) initiated administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. 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 30 May 1988 an ADB found that you had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense, and recommended an other than honorable discharge. On 12 August 1988 the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 19 August 1988 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 and desire for veterans’ benefits. The Board also considered your contention of innocence. 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 counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable discharge. Regarding your contention, there is no evidence in the record to support your innocence of some of the charges except for the SCM conviction that shows you were charged with six instances of UA, but only convicted of two. 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