DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

                                2 NAVY ANNEX

                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                              ELP
                                                              Docket No.
                                                              8262-00
                                                              4 May 2001









           Dear

           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 for the Board for Correction of Navy
           Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
           application on 2 May 2001. 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.

           You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 November 1976 for four
           years at age 17. The record reflects you were advanced to LCPL
           (E-3) and served for nearly 15 months without a disciplinary
           infraction. However, during the 11 month period from February
           1978 you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for two
           periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling about 49 days and
           possession of marijuana.

           Your medical record reflects that as of 26 September 1979 you
           had received treatment for pseudofolliculitis barbae for eight
           weeks without satisfactory results. A medical officer
           recommended that you be administratively separated by reason of
           convenience of the government.

           On 16 November 1979 you were convicted by special court-martial
           of two periods of UA totalling about 51 days, from 8 June to 26
           July and 27-30 July 1979. You were sentenced to confinement





at hard labor for 45 days, forfeitures of $50 per month for three months,
and reduction in rank to PVT (E-1). On 31 December 1979 the convening
authority suspended the confinement at hard labor in excess of 30 days.

In January 1980 you began two periods of UA from 30 January to 24 June 1980
and from 26 June 1980 until 13 January 1981, when you surrender~ed to
military authorities. The following day you submitted a request for
discharge under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service
to escape trial by court— martial for the foregoing two periods of UA
totalling about 343 days. In a separate statement, you claimed personal
problems caused your UAs and you could not remain in the service because of
pseudofolliculitis barbae. Prior to submitting your request you conferred
with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your
rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge. A staff judge advocate reviewed your request and found it to be
sufficient in law and fact. On 22 January 1981 the discharge authority
directed discharged under other than honorable conditions. You were so
discharged on 5 February 1981.

In its review of your application the. Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, limited
education, low test scores, and the fact that it has been 20 years since
you were discharged. The Board noted your contention that you still have
ongoing medical problems from your active service. You provide a
psychiatric evaluation conducted in November 2000 which indicates you
suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of service in
the Philippines, Cambodia and Thailand; and medical records showing ongoing
treatment for swollen lymph nodes. However, the Board also noted that
although a medical officer had recommended you for an administrative
separation because of pseudofolliculities barbae, the commanding officer
was not bound by that recommendation. While your record indicates you
served in the Philippines, there is no evidence of any service in Cambodia
and Thailand.

The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your
record of three NJPs and special court—martial conviction, and the fact
that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for two
prolonged periods of UA totalling nearly a year. The Board noted the
problems you alleged at the time of your discharge. However, you provided
no evidence of any circumstance which would have justified a year of UA.
The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your
request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since,
by this action, you escape the possibility of confinement at hard labor and
a punitive



                                      2















discharge. Further the Board concluded that you received the benefit of
your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was
granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. Additionally a
report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained by the Board
indicates that your post-service conduct has been marred by a felony
conviction for battery. The Board thus concluded that the discharge was
proper 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.
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