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

SMW
Docket No: 10625-06
16 May 2007

Dear

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 6 September 1984 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 18 September 1984 you were granted a retention waiver after you were identified as a fraudulent enlistee due to failure to disclose an unpaid parking ticket and pre-service use of marijuana.

On 10 April 1985 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobedience of a lawful order. On 9 July 1985 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 8 August 1985 you received NJP for a brief period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 7 May 1986 you were counseled after your on-base driving privileges were revoked for unspecified reasons. You were counseled again on that same date regarding your substandard performance of duty, untrustworthiness, blatant minor infractions, and pattern of misconduct. You were warned again that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an administrative separation.

On 14 August 1986 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a brief period of UA. On 21 August 1986 you were counseled regarding breaking restriction, and again, warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an administrative separation. On 20 August 1986 your urinalysis tested positive for cocaine and, on 22 August 1986, suspended punishment from the SCM was vacated due to this misconduct. On 3 September 1986 you were counseled regarding drug abuse and again warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an administrative separation.

On 11 October 1986 another urinalysis tested positive for cocaine. On 12 December 1986 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, two instances of use of cocaine, and breaking restriction. The court sentenced you to forfeitures of pay, confinement, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 13 November 1987 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board also considered the contention that your use of illegal drugs and schizophrenia contributed to your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct that continued even after you were repeatedly warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an administrative separation. Regarding your contentions, drug abuse does not excuse misconduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to show that you were diagnosed with schizophrenia and you provided 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 PFEIFFER
	Executive Director