DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS3
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

TJR
Docket No: 7465-07
3 June 2008

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 3 June 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.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 9 April 1970 at age of 17 and served without disciplinary infraction until 12 October 1970, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA) . The punishment imposed was a $25 forfeiture of pay.

On 28 April 1971 you began another period of UA that was not terminated until 21 October 1971. About four months later, on 17 February 1972, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA totalling 176 days. Your record shows that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 27 March 1972 your request for discharge was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of the good
of the service. 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. On 5 April 1972 you were issued an other than honorable discharge.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, assertion of good post service conduct, and belief that your discharge was unjust. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your lengthy period of UA, which resulted in your request for separation to avoid trial by court-martial. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. Further, 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. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion. 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