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

SMW
Docket No:7871-07
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 ~our 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 17 October 1975, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. During the period 4 November 1976 to 22 June 1978, you had two nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) and were convicted by a special court-martial. Your offenses included four instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 86 days, three instances of failure to obey a lawful order, three instances of destruction of government property, escape from correctional custody, disrespect, communicating a threat, and failure to return to your appointed place of duty. On 27 June 1978, a substance abuse evaluation found that you were psychologically dependent on illicit drugs and recommended treatment. During the period 28 to 30 August 1978, you were in a UA status, but it appears that no disciplinary action was taken for this offense.

On 21 September 1978, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (0TH) discharge, elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), but later waived that right if your commanding officer agreed to recommend a general discharge. However, the separation authority subsequently directed reprocessing of your administrative separation. On 28 September and 5 October 1978, you had NJP for disrespect and failure to obey a lawful order.

On 14 November 1978, your commanding officer initiated another administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an 0TH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an ADB. On 13 December 1978, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 21 December 1978, 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 belief that your discharge would be upgraded due to the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterjzatjon of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after administrative separation was initiated. Furthermore, there is no provision in the law or regulations that allows for recharacterization due to the passage of time. 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.

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

2

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