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

SMW
Docket No: 7999-07
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 17 September 1980, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent with an enlistment guarantee to attend a hospital corpsman “A” school. During the period
7 to 11 January 1981, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, but it appears that no disciplinary action was taken. On 13 March and 3 April 1981, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of marijuana, a nine day period of UA, absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and breaking restriction. On 6 April 1981, your guarantee to attend hospital corpsman “A” school was cancelled due to your disciplinary infractions.

During the period 11 April to 27 August 1981, you had four NJP’s for three instances of UA totaling about 37 days, four instances of absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, missing the movement of your ship, breaking restriction, disobedience of a lawful order, and four instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 29 August 1981, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. However, it appears that your misconduct continued.

On 8 September 1981, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement, and recommended an other than honorable (0TH) discharge. On 12 September 1981, you had NJP for eight instances of absence from your appointed place of duty, two instances of failure to obey a lawful order, and two instances of communicating a threat. On 12 September 1981, you acknowledged the recommended separation and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 27 September 1981, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 15 October 1981, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth. The Board also considered your contentions of recruiter misconduct and that your enlistment should be voided because you never passed the General Education Development (GED) test. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were warned that further infractions could result in an 0TH discharge. Regarding your contentions, there is no evidence in the record of recruiter misconduct and a void enlistment would not apply in your case. 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