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

					SMW
									Docket No: 9341-07 
									5 June 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 4 June 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 30 October 1965, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18. On 29 November 1966, you reported to Vietnam and served as a motor vehicle body repairman. On 6 July 1967, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect. On 28 November 1967, you departed Vietnam. On 21 February 1968, you had NJP for failure to obey a lawful order. On 2 April 1968, you reported for duty to Marine Barracks Subic Bay. During the period 27 September 1968 to 25 August 1969, you had eight NJP’s and were convicted by a summary court-martial. Your offenses included five instances of willful disobedience of a lawful order, disobedience of a lawful order, six instances of unauthorized absence totaling about six days, being incapacitated for duty, disrespect, assault, and accessory after the fact. On 22 October 1969, you returned to a stateside duty station for early separation. On 30 October 1969, you were released from active duty under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to early separation of overseas returnees.

On 27 November 1971, you were discharged with a general discharge due to the expiration of your obligated service.

Characterization of service is determined by a service members 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. Your final proficiency and conduct mark averages were 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. Given your disciplinary record that included ten NJP’s and a court-martial conviction and your failure to attain the minimum conduct average required for a fully honorable characterization of service, it appears 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. The Board also considered your contention that you were awarded the Combat Action Ribbon (CAR). Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterjzation of your service due to your overall record. Regarding your contention, the record shows that Headquarters Marine Corps reviewed your personnel record on 13 November 2006, and found that you were not entitled to the CAR. 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