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

SMW
Docket No: 8211-07
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 26 October 1985, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 17 with parental consent. On 14 November 1985, you began a period of active service. On 31 March 1986 and 11 January 1987, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order and failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 15 January 1987, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (0TH) discharge. During the period
30 March 1987 to 24 September 1987, you had two NJP’s, suspended punishment vacated, and were convicted by a special court-martial Your offenses included six occasions of UA totaling about six days, making a false official statement, uttering a worthless check, two instances of breaking restriction, and two instances of use of methamphetamine. On 2 October 1987, a substance abuse evaluation found that you were psychologically dependent on methamphetamine and recommended treatment.

On 5 October 1987, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse, and recommended an 0TH discharge. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the recommended separation and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 15 October 1987, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You subsequently declined substance abuse treatment at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital. On 29 October 1987, you were separated with an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterizatjon 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. 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 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