Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
		WASHINGT0N~20370~l°°

SMW
Docket No: 1905-07
30 August 2007

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 29 August 2007. 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 9 July 1976, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On 7 March 1977, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for three
instances of absence from your appointed place of duty. On that same date, 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. On 14 April 1977 and 8 February 1978, you had NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and four instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 29 days. On
6 June 1978, you began a UA that ended on 11 October 1978, a period of about 127 days. On 31 October 1978, you received a substance abuse evaluation that diagnosed you as alcohol dependent and recommended treatment. On 19 December 1978, you were convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of the 127-day UA. On 8February 1979, you had NJP for a four day period of UA.

On 17 April 1979, you began another UA. On 23 April 1979, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 27 April 1979, you surrendered after being UA for about 10 days. On 1 May 1979, in connection with the administrative separation action, you acknowledged that separation could result in an 0TH discharge and elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 3 May 1979, you had NJP for the 10-day UA and suspended punishment from the NJP of 8 February 1979 was also vacated. On 24 May 1979, you had NJP for a brief period of UA. On 20 June 1979, an ADB found that you had committed misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement and recommended an 0TH discharge. On 28 August 1979, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 12 September 1979, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board also considered your contentions of being advised to accept an 0TH discharge and that your peacetime UA’s were caused by personal problems. 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 you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an 0TH discharge. Regarding your contentions, there is no evidence in the record to show that you were advised to accept an 0TH discharge. The record shows that you elected to have your discharge case heard by an ADB, which was your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. However, the ADB found that your misconduct warranted an 0TH discharge and personal problems do not excuse your misconduct. 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.

2
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