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

SMW
Docket No: 7267-07
10 April 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 9 April 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 24 February 1972, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18 and served without incident for more than two years. On 5 April 1974, you were convicted in civil court of disorderly conduct. On 8 May 1974, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, specifically, failure to comply with uniform regulations and refusing to obey lawful orders. On 24 September 1974, you were counseled because you received 17 letters of indebtedness from ten different creditors during the period 4 December 1973 to 21 September 1974. At that time you were warned that further infractions could result in an undesirable discharge (UD) On 4 December 1974, you were convicted in civil court of possession of marijuana. The sentence included five years of probation and a fine. You subsequently disclosed that you began using marijuana during January 1974 and used it on a daily basis.

On 22 January 1975, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a UD and elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). You later waived that right and requested that your commanding officer recommend a general discharge. On 11 March 1975, you were apprehended by civilian authorities and charged with issuance of a bad check. On 31 March 1975, you were counseled regarding your numerous letters of indebtedness. The separation authority subsequently approved your commanding officer’s recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. On 10 April 1975, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and contention that your discharge was a result of one isolated civil conviction. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct. Furthermore, although you were convicted in civil court, regulations authorize discharge of such individuals. Finally, the Board noted that you first elected to have your case heard by an ADB, but later waived that right, which was 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.

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