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

	CRS
					Docket No:04155-05
					30 August 2005

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 August 2005. 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 Navy on 27 April 1982. The record reflects that on 22 February 1983 you received nonjudicial punishment for absence from your appointed place of duty, disrespect, and failure to obey a lawful order.

A special court-martial convened on 11 December 1985 and found you guilty of an unauthorized absence of 758 days. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor for three months, reduction in pay grade, and a bad conduct discharge. Subsequently, on 21 February 1986 the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the forfeitures for eight months and deferred execution of the bad conduct discharge, pending appellate review. Upon completion of appellate review, you received the bad conduct discharge on 30 March 1987.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the contention that your bad conduct discharge was not executed. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not    sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the fact that your unauthorized absence was more than two years. In this regard, you have presented no evidence that your bad conduct discharge was not executed, only your misreading of the convening authority’s action. 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