DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 

NAW  ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

ELP
Docket No. 7172-99
26 February  2000

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 24 February 2000.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.

Your allegations of error and

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 Navy on 25 February 1981
The record reflects that on 24 April
for four years at age 18.
1981 the commanding officer reported to the Naval Military
Personnel Command (NMPC) that you were being investigated for
fraudulent enlistment due to unrevealed pre-service civil arrests
and drug involvement.
given your fair record and attitude while in recruit training and
NMPC authorized retention
sincere desire to remain in the Navy.
on 6 May 1981.

However, your retention was recommended

During the 13 month period from June 1981 to July 1982 you
received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and were convicted by
a summary court-martial and a special court-martial.
offenses consisted of three brief periods of unauthorized absence
failure to obey a lawful written
totalling about eight days,
order, reckless driving of a motorcycle, driving at excessive

Your

speeds down the fire lanes of the barracks area, resisting
three instances of failure to go to or
apprehension, assault,
absence from your appointed place of duty, stealing a miniature
bottle of liquor, consuming alcoholic beverages while in a
restricted status, and signing a false official document.

On 3 August 1982 you underwent a psychiatric evaluation and were
diagnosed with alcohol dependence and a mixed personality
disorder with immature, passive-aggressive and antisocial
features.

On 13 August 1982 you were convicted by special court-martial of
You were
stealing an automobile belonging to another Sailor.
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months,
forfeitures of $275 per month for three months and a bad conduct
The record further reflects that on 30 October 1982
discharge.
you were convicted by civil authorities of armed robbery and
sentenced to 180 days in the county jail.
military confinement on 28 October 1982 and placed in the hands
of civil authorities to serve the civil confinement. On
19 November 1982 the convening authority approved the special
court-martial sentence and considered defense counsel's comments
and the recommendation of the court that you receive alcohol
rehabilitation treatment prior to discharge.

You were released from

You returned to military jurisdiction on 21 December 1982 and
were admitted to alcohol rehabilitation on 19 January 1983.
While in treatment, you were incapable of taking antabuse.

You
attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings six days a week, but
received no liberty due to your failure to adhere to regulations
prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
weeks of observation, the staff agreed that maximum benefits  

treatment had been reached.
and it was strongly recommended that you be discharged as an
alcohol rehabilitation failure.

of
Your prognosis was judged to be poor

On 25 January 1983, you were convicted by civil authorities of
leaving the scene of an accident and failure to have a driver's
license. You were sentenced to six months of probation and $10 a
month 
reported UA and remained absent until 14 February 1989 when you
were apprehended and turned over to military authorities.

for the cost of supervision.

That same day, you were

Meanwhile, clemency was denied and the Navy Court of Military
Review affirmed the findings and sentence of the 13 August 1982
special court-martial.
You received the bad conduct discharge
on 1 December 1983.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity
and the fact that it has been more than 16 years since you were

2

The Board noted your contentions that you completed
discharged.
a prescribed alcohol rehabilitation treatment program in 1983 and
presumed that your discharge would be upgraded upon completion of
However, your contentions are not supported by the
that program.
evidence of record.
program, you did not complete that program because you lacked
The
motivation and continued drinking while in the program.
Board noted that the court recommended that you undergo alcohol
rehabilitation treatment prior to discharge.
successfully completed a rehabilitation treatment program had no
Further, a court cannot
bearing on the sentence of the court.
suspend or modify a sentence contingent upon successful
completion of treatment.

While you were placed in a rehabilitation

Whether you

The Board concluded that recharacterization of your discharge is
not warranted given your record of four  
NJPs, convictions by a
summary court-martial and two special courts-martial, and the
serious nature of your two civil convictions.
concluded that you were guilty of too much misconduct to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge to honorable or under
Your conviction and discharge were
honorable conditions.
effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and
the discharge appropriately characterizes your service.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The Board

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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

3