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

TJR
Docket No: 9492-02
29 August 2003

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 26 August 2003. 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 30 September 1977 at age 18. You served without disciplinary incident until 20 June 1979 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your, appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 15 days, a $150 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade E-1, which was suspended for six months. On 14 November 1979 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and sleeping on watch and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 15 days. The suspended reduction awarded at the 20 June 1979 NJP was also vacated at that time.

On 29 August 1980 you received NJP for improperly standing watch and were awarded a $100 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty.

On 11 March 1981 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, and four specifications of assault. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $100 forfeiture of pay. Approximately two months later, on 7 March 1981, you were again convicted by SCM of a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA), missing the movement of your ship, and three specifications of disrespect. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 25 days and a $200 forfeiture of pay.

Subsequently, on 11 May 1981, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. On 15 May 1981 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due a frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 8 June 1981 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. On 12 June 1981 you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded bread and water for three days. Shortly thereafter, on 29 June 1981, you were discharged under other than honorable conditions.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity and your contentions that all of the charges against you were false and that you were not properly represented by counsel. It further considered your contention that you did not receive an opportunity to attend school. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in four NJPs and two court-martial convictions. Further, the Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions of false accusations, improper legal representation, or being deprived of the opportunity to attend school. 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