DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

ELP
Docket No. 1211-01
27 July 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.

Your 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
25 July 2001.
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.

allegations'of  error and injustice were

considered your application on

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 was unable to obtain your military records and based
its review on the records you provided.
that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 27 January 1967 for four
years at age 19.

Subsequently, you were advanced to PFC.

Those records reflect

On 20 November 1967 you requested a hardship discharge because
your family was in a serious state of poverty.
officer's recommendation for approval was not supported by the
chain of command and your request was denied by the Commandant of
the Marine Corps.

The commanding

You then served without incident until 8 December 1967 when you
received nonjudicial punishment for consuming alcoholic beverages
in a duty status and threatening to inflict bodily harm with a
knife.
(E-3).

However, you continued to serve and were advanced to LCPL

You reported to duty in Vietnam on 5 October 1968.
Vietnam, you received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and were
You offenses consisted
convicted by two summary courts-martial.
of assault with a bayonet,
absence, disobedience, disrespect,
duty.

You completed your tour in Vietnam on 5 October 1969.

two brief periods of unauthorized

and being incapacitated for

While in

On 10 August 1970 you submitted a request for an undesirable
discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by  
martial for a six day period of UA and failure to obey a lawful
regulation by having six cans of beer in a wall locker where
protective clothing was stored.
you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you
were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse
The staff judge
consequences of accepting such a discharge.
advocate reviewed your request and found it to be sufficient in
law and fact.
an undesirable discharge for the good of the service.
so discharged on 15 September 1970.

On 28 August 1970 the discharge authority directed
You were

Prior to submitting this request

court-

The record further reflects that on 20 June 1977 the Naval
Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded your discharge to a
general discharge under the Department of Defense Special
Discharge Review Program (SDRP).
However, discharges under the
SDRP met adverse congressional reaction and led to the enactment
of Public Law 95-126, which precluded veterans benefits for any
individual whose discharge was upgraded under such a program with
automatic upgrading criteria.

However, since this document did not state any

On 3 April 1978, the NDRB again reviewed your case as required by
Public Law 95-126, and issued a decisional document concerning
that review.
reason for the decision, the Naval Complaints Review Board
directed that the decisional document be amended.
1979, the NDRB re-reviewed your case yet again to determine
whether you should be awarded an upgraded discharge under
published uniform standards which were historically consistent
with the criteria for performing honorable service.
original undesirable discharge had been upgraded to a general
discharge under the SDRP,
for which you requested discharge,
when viewed with your overall
record of service, warranted a characterization of having served
under other than honorable conditions.
determined that the general discharge you received under the SDRP
should not be changed.
discharge, but were ineligible for veterans benefits.

the NDRB concluded that the offenses

Therefore, you kept this upgraded

Accordingly, the NDRB

On 30 October

Although the

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,

2

Vietnam service, your wife's letter,
reference, the letters to the editor
views, the family documents, and the
31 years since you were discharged.
statement explaining the circumstances surrounding your
disciplinary actions, and your contentions to the effect that the
NJPs and courts-martial were for minor isolated offenses in which
racial discrimination was a primary contributing factor; alcohol
and marital problems impaired your ability to serve; and you were
within four months of completing your enlistment when you were
discharged.

the other letters of
expressing your political
fact that it has been nearly
The Board also noted your

_

NJPs and two summary courts-martial

The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of three  
convictions, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than
face trial by court-martial.
The Board believed that consider-
able clemency was extended to you when the request for discharge
to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this
action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor
and a punitive 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.
The Board concurred with the  
conclusions that your overall record of service does not warrant
recharacterization to honorable or under honorable conditions.
Additionally, a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
obtained by the Board show that after discharge you were
and driving while intoxicated.
convicted of robbery, burglary,
The Board thus concluded that the general discharge you received
under the SDRP was appropriate and no further change is
warranted.

NDRB's

At the time of your service, reenlistment codes were not
assigned.
However, when your discharge was upgraded and a new DD
Form 214 was issued, regulations then required the assignment of
an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged for the good
of the service.

There are no provisions for the return of an individual's uniform
once a discharge has been upgraded to honorable conditions.

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.

3

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