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

			TRG
		      	Docket No: 8326-07
			21 Mar 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 6 May 2005. 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 Marine Corps on 10 January 1967 at age 17. On 26 October 1967 you received nonjudicial punishment for an absence from your appointed place of duty. Beginning on 1 November 1967, you were an unauthorized absentee on two occasions totaling about 395 days. On 11 March 1969 you were convicted by a general court-martial of the two periods of unauthorized absence. The sentence of the court included confinement and forfeitures of pay a portion of which was suspended. On 23 August 1969 you began another period of unauthorized absence which lasted until you were apprehended on 24 February 1972, a period of about 906 days.

Your military record shows that you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the 906 day period of unauthorized absence. Your record also shows that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. The Board found that your request was granted on 6 April 1972 and, as a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. You were discharged on 20 April 1972.

In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, limited education and your contention, in effect, that you have been adequately punished by having an undesirable discharge for over 35 years. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of misconduct and especially your request for discharge to avoid trial for the offenses. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. The Board concluded that your 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