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

SMW
Docket No:7859-07
23 May 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 21 May 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 21 September 1987, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age
18. On 3 June 1988, you reported for sea duty on board the USS MISSOURI. On 26 September 1988, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a five day period of unauthorized absence and missing the movement of your ship. On 4 November 1988, you were relieved for cause (RFC) from sea duty and subsequently reported to Camp Pendleton for duty. On 10 March 1989, you had NJP for disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of your duties. On 24 March 1989, you were counseled regarding your frequent discreditable involvement and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation.

On 28 September 1990, you received a psychiatric evaluation after you locked, loaded, and pointed a weapon at a commissioned officer and stated that you wanted to be discharged. The evaluation diagnosed you as having an adjustment disorder, personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial and borderline traits, chronic asthma, and concluded by recommending an expeditious discharge.

On 11 October 1990, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that characterization of service would be determined by your service record. On 12 October 1990, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder. On 12 October 1990, you were separated with a general discharge.

Characterization of service is determined by a service member’s conduct, actions, performance and marks assigned on a periodic basis. Minimum acceptable average proficiency and conduct marks of 3.0 and 4.0, respectively, are required to form the basis for a fully honorable characterization of service. Given your disciplinary record, RFC from sea duty, administrative separation warning, and locking, loading and pointing your rifle at a commissioned officer, it appears that your commanding officer determined that your service did not warrant an honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and desire for an honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterjzatjon of your service due to your overall service record. 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