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

SMW
Docket No: 714-07
28 February 2008

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 27 February 2008. 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 8 July 1965, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 21 after a prior period of honorable service. On 13 August 1965, you reported for duty to the Naval Support Activity in Danang, Vietnam. On 26 July 1966, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order by going out of bounds. On 1 August 1966, you departed Vietnam. On 24 September 1966, you reported for duty in London, England. During the period 7 October 1966 to 7 December 1967, you had six nonjudicial punishments (NJPts), were convicted by a summary court-martial, and given two oral reprimands. Your offenses included fourteen instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 14 days. On 2 January 1968, you were given a letter of warning regarding your frequent discreditable conduct and warned that further infractions could result in an undesirable discharge (UD). During the period 27 February 1968 to 10 March 1969, you had two NJP’~ and an oral reprimand. Your offenses included disobedience of a lawful order and three instances of UA totaling about four days. On 13 March 1969, your commanding officer forwarded a
request to the separation authority in which he stated that you had not adjusted well to living on the local economy and your misconduct would be precluded if transferred immediately to sea duty. On 10 April 1969, you had NJP for two instances of UA totaling about five days. On 10 April 1969, you departed London, England. On 12 May 1969, you reported for sea duty aboard the USS RUSHMORE (LSD 14). On 18 August 1969, you had NJP for missing the movement of your ship.

On 28 August 1969, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of unfitness. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a UD and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 19 September 1969, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and 4!~aUD by reason ~f unfitness. Cn25 September 3.969, you were so discTiarged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth, period of honorable service, and service in Vietnam. The Board also considered your contention that your UA’s began after you reported to London, England, for duty, and the death of a family member may have attributed to your misconduct. 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 warned that further infractions could result in a UD. The Board also noted that your misconduct even continued after you were transferred to sea duty in order to move you from London, England, where most of your misconduct occurred. Regarding your contention, the Board noted that you had two NJP’s during your first enlistment for two instances of absence from your appointed place of duty and being incapacitated for the proper performance of your duty. Furthermore, although you provided evidence of the death of a family member, such an unfortunate event does not excuse misconduct. Finally, the Board noted that you waived the right to have your case heard by an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. 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.

The Board noted that as a result of your prior honorable service, you may be eligible for veterans’ benefits. You should contact the nearest office of the Department of Veterans Affairs if you desire clarification about your eligibility for those benefits.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the

2
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