DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ROARD FOR C0RRE~TION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASH!NGTON DC 20370-5100

TJR
										Docket No: 3745-06 
										17 October 2006

This is in reference to your application for correction of your late husband’s 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 17 October 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 late husband’s 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.

Your late husband enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 14 December 1942 at the age of 17. He served without disciplinary incident until 15 March 1944, when he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 12 day period of unauthorized absence (tJA). He was sentenced to a $150 forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (BCD) . However, the BCD was suspended for six months.

About two months later, on 19 May 1944, he was again convicted by SCM of a 10 day period of UA. On 2 August 1944 your late husband received captain’s mast (CM) for a 14 day period of UA. At that time the BCD was ordered executed. After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 3 August 1944, he was so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your late husband’s entire record and your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as his youth and post service conduct, and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge because of the seriousness of his repetitive periods of UA during wartime. Further, the Board noted that at his first court-martial, he was sentenced to a BCD but it was suspended, thus giving him the opportunity to earn a better characterization of service, but he failed to do so as evidenced by his two additional periods of UA. 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