DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37-5100

						HD:hd
										Docket No. 01382-06
										28 February 2006

-

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.

You requested that your minimum service obligation be reduced from eight to seven years, or that you be released from active duty effective February 2006. As indicated in the enclosed letter dated 2 February 2006, your case was administratively closed, pending exhaustion of the administrative remedy of submitting your request for release from active duty directly to the Secretary of the Navy. The enclosed memorandum of 13 February 2006, from the Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), shows this request was denied. Accordingly, your case was reopened.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, Considered your application on 24 February 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulation 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. In addition, the Board Considered the advisory Opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 November 2005 with enclosures, a copy of which ~S attached. The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 26 January 2006 with exhibits, 6 February 2006 with enclosures and 14 February 2006.

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except it found you will complete your minimum service requirement in February 2007 rather than April 2007. The Board found your eight-year obligation was established by statute and not subject to change by contractual agreement. The Board concluded that it would have been within the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to grant your request for release from active duty at the seven-year point; however, the Board was not persuaded that such authority should have been exercised in your case. In this regard, the Board did not find compelling the harm you assert you will suffer as a result of having to serve the additional year. Finally, the Board felt you would not be entitled to relief, even if you are correct that the three lieutenants named in enclosure (2) to the advisory opinion were ultimately released from active duty before completing their eight-year statutory obligation. In view of the above, 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