Last saved by: terry.bynum

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

					TJR
									Docket No: 3822-07 
									28 February 2008

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 27 February 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 8 November 1983 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 16 July 1984, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for seven days and a $75 forfeiture of pay, all of which was suspended for four months.

During the period from 28 June 1985 to 17 June 1986 you received NJP on three more occasions for two specifications of larceny, wrongful appropriation, and a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were also convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of assault and absence from your appointed place of duty.

On 11 July 1986 administrative separation processing had been initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. On 4 August 1986 your commanding officer recommended separation under other than
honorable conditions due to a pattern of misconduct and drug abuse as evidenced by a positive urinalysis. Shortly thereafter, on 11 August 1986, you received NJP for a two day period of UA and were awarded a $319 forfeiture of pay. On 21 November 1986 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a two day period of UA, insubordination, and six periods of absence from your appointed place of duty.

On 30 April 1987 you were again convicted by SPCM of attempts, forgery, and uttering checks with insufficient funds. You were sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 9 December 1988 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 and assertions that your discharge was inequitable because you were not informed of your legal rights and it does not properly characterize your military service. It also considered your assertions of medical and martial problems, lack of command cooperation, and being told that your discharge would be automatically upgraded. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in five NJP5 and three court-martial convictions. Finally, no discharge is automatically upgraded due solely to an individual’s good post service conduct or the passage of time. 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