DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
			 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2  NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
								       TJR
											Docket No: 3640-06
											7 November 2006

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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2006. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 1 May 1980 at age 21. You served for one year and four months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 2 September 1981 to 20 July 1984 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on five occasions for 953 days and were declared a deserter on three occasions. As a result, on 6 September 1984, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of these periods of UA and sentenced to an $800 forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor for 100 days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 29 January 1986, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertion that you were on emergency leave awaiting approval of a hardship discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA, which resulted in a court-martial conviction. 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

2