DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                                         	BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NA\JAL RECORDS
		                      2 NAVYANNEX
                                                                                  	       WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100

RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 07493-07
	14 March 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 12 March 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 24 March 1984 at age 18. On 3 May 1985 you were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and issued a written warning that further instances of this sort of behavior could result in disciplinary action and administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions (0TH) . A little over a month later you were again arrested for DUI and received a second written warning of the consequences of such behavior. About two months later, on 20 August 1985 you were drunk and disorderly in barracks and engaged in an altercation with security personnel which required that you be treated for injuries at a Naval hospital.

On 6 October 1986 you were issued a written warning regarding your performance and conduct based on a lack of production, sleeping in class, failure to follow instructions, unauthorized absence (UA) and inappropriately touching a female Sailor. You were told that if such conduct persisted you could be disciplined and issued an 0TH discharge. A little over two weeks later you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for UA.

On 20 November 1986 you received a second NJP for two periods of UA totaling about 20 hours. You were again given a written warning of the consequences of such behavior.
On 2 September1987 you received a third NJP for two instances of drunken and reckless driving as well as being insubordinate to a superior petty officer. The following day you were informed you would be processed for administrative discharge due to repeated acts of misconduct. You acknowledged that you could receive an 0TH discharge and then waived your right to consult with a military lawyer and have your case heard by an administrative discharge board. In his recommendation for an 0TH discharge your commanding officer pointed out that despite the fact that your received repeated professional counseling, level II alcohol abuse treatment and extensive after care treatment you fail to rehabilitate yourself. He also cited an incident that occurred after administrative discharge proceedings were started in which you were arrested for DUT, attempting to elude arrest and threatening a military policeman. On 23 November you received an 0TH discharge.

In view of your extensive disciplinary record and your failure to respond to repeated efforts to assist you in changing your behavior the Board concluded that your discharge was proper and should not be changed.

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