DEPARTMENT OF TH.E NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 3797-06
29 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 28 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 15 August 1963 after three years of prior honorable service and served for nearly three months without disciplinary incident. However, during the period from 8 November 1963 to 5 February 1964 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on three occasions. As a result, on 24 February 1964, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of these periods of UA totalling 81 days. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months, a $135 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD).

On 5 March 1964 your commanding officer stated that during an interview you indicated that you firmly convinced that there was no alternative than for you to accept a BCD. The letter further stated, as follows:

(Member) appeared for interview..., despite his cooperative attitude, he was firmly convinced that there was no alternative than for him to accept a BCD.... his record prior to his reenlistment was commendable.... he is not personally lacking in motivation and there is no doubt of his proficiency in rate..., he is in a word one who must seek discharge for domestic reasons..., his absences are directly traceable to his concern for his wife and his wife’s lack of concern for his naval career.... although his conduct has at all time previous been satisfactory, there is no alternative - in light of his attitude and resignation -than to reflect the previous sentence as awarded.

On 14 April 1964 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 8 May 1964, you were so discharged. At this time you were not recommended for reenlistment.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service and assertion that you are in need of medical help. 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. Finally, given the BCD, the nonrecornmendation for reenlistment was also appropriate. 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