DEPARTMENT O F  T H E   NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

ELP 
Docket No. 327-01 
23 April 2001 

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 18 April 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. 

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 
15 September 1972 for four years at age 17.  The record reflects 
that you were advanced to PFC  (E-2) and served only five months 
without incident.  However, during the seven month period from 
March 1973 to October 1973 you received four nonjudicial 
punishments  ( N J P )   and were convicted by a summary court-martial. 
Your offenses consisted of three instances of absence from your 
appointed place of duty, possession of eight grams of marijuana, 
three instances of failure to obey a lawful order or regulation, 
failure to walk your post in a military manner, leaving your post 
without being relieved, and disrespect.  During this period you 
were convicted by civil authorities of possession of marijuana 
and fined $90. 

On 7 February 1974 you were convicted by  special court-martial 
of a 57-day period of unauthorized absence  (UA) from 5 November 
1973 to 2 January 1974,  failure to stand inspection, and escaping 
from lawful custody.  You were sentenced to confinement at hard 
labor for three months,  forfeitures of $100 per month  for three 
months,  and a bad conduct discharge  (BCD). 

On 20 June 1974 you were convicted by a second special court- 
martial of two specifications of disobeying a lawful order 
and being disrespectful  in language towards a SGT  (E-5). 
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 105 days, 
forfeitures of $200 per month  for two months, and a BCD.  On 
27 September 1974 you waived your right to request restoration to 
duty and requested that the BCD be executed.  You stated that the 
Marine Corps had established a prejudicial  attitude toward you. 
Additionally, you asserted  that you had a grudge against the 
Marine Corps because you were denied the right to see your 
grandmother when  she was in need, and you felt it would be better 
if your service was  terminated before you got killed or before 
you killed someone. 

On 20 September 1974 you received NJP for disrespect  towards an 
officer and a staff noncommissioned officer, and three instances 
of disobeying a lawful order.  You were placed on appellate leave 
on 11 October 1974.  However, on 22 October  1974 you were charged 
by civil authorities with manslaughter  and y0u.r appellate leave 
was cancelled. 

The Navy Court of Military  review affirmed  the findings and 
the sentence of the 4 February 1974 special court-martial on 
14 November  1974.  The second special court-martial was affirmed 
by the Navy Court of Military  Review on 14 February 1975 and you 
received the BCD on 28 May  1975. 

In its review of your application  the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, 
limited education, and the fact that it has been nearly 26 years 
since your were discharged.  The Board noted your contention that 
the Executive Order issued by  President Carter was not applied in 
your case.  The Board could not determine if you were referring 
the Ford Clemency Program that established a Presidential 
Clemency Board  (PCB) to hear appeals of veterans who went UA or 
were discharged between August  1964 and March  1973 with an 
undesirable, BCD or dishonorable discharges or the unconditional 
pardoning  that led to the establishment of the Special Discharge 
Review Program  (SDRP) in January 1977 by  the Carter 
Administration.  Had you applied, it appears that you would not 
have met  the criteria for either program.  Further, these 
programs met with adverse congressional reaction which resulted 

in the enactment of legislation which prohibited granting of 
veterans' benefits for any individual whose discharges were 
upgraded under these programs unless they were further reviewed 
by a Discharge Review Board under uniform standards which were 
historically consistent with the criteria for determining 
honorable service. 

" 

The ~ o a r d  concluded that the foregoing factors and contention 
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge 
given your record of five NJPs and convictions by a summary and 
two special courts-martial.  Your conviction and discharge were 
effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and 
the discharge appropriately characterizes your service.  The 
Board obtained a Federal Bureau of Investigation report that 
shows your post-service conduct has been marred by convictions 
for aggravated assault, possession of narcotics, violation of the 
Uniform Firearms Act, drunk driving, disorderly conduct, retail 
theft, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.  The 
current conviction for which you are presently incarcerated was 
not shown in the report.  The Board 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