Last saved by: terry.bynum

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

CRS
									 Docket No: 6363-07 
									 29 February 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 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 15 November 1968. On 12 May 1969 you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence. On 19 May 1969 you were transferred to Vietnam where you were wounded in action on 6 June 1969 and immediately transferred to medical facilities outside of Vietnam. Subsequently, you received three nonjudicial punishments and were convicted by a special court-martial. The offenses included unauthorized absences totaling 268 days, failure to obey a lawful order, and disrespect.

On 7 September 1971 you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an unauthorized absence of 140 days. Prior to submitting this request you conferred with a qualified military lawyer who advised you of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of receiving an undesirable discharge. Your request was approved by the discharge authority, and you received an undesirable discharge on 11 February 1972.

On 1 June 1977 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) recharacterized your discharge to general under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). However, on 21 June 1978 NDRB declined to affirm the general discharge under its uniform discharge review standards, thereby denying your eligibility for veterans benefits.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the contentions that you had symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after you were wounded, which in turn caused your misconduct, and that discharge does not reflect the true character of your service. The Board found those contentions insufficient to warrant corrective action in your case.

The Board concluded that your service was properly characterized with an undesirable discharge given your repeated commission of serious offenses. In addition, the Board believes that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge was approved since, by that action, you avoided the possibility of a Federal conviction, confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. Further, the Board 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 was not persuaded that you suffered from PTSD while in the Marine Corps, or that you lacked mental responsibility for your actions. 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