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

						 CRS
Docket No: 5457-06
4 October 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.

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 September 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 7 November 1983 after three years of prior active service. The record reflects that you received two nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included an unauthorized absence of a day and use of provoking words. On 7 July 1987 you received a third nonjudicial punishment for unspecified violations of Articles 91, 111, 116, 117, 128 and Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $150, restriction and extra duty for 30 days and a reduction in rate from petty officer third class (MS3; E-4) to seaman (SN; E-3) On 28 September 1987 you were honorably discharged by reason of expiration of term of service. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4 due to your substandard performance, lack of motivation, and disregard for authority.

The Board considered your contention that the nonjudicial punishment of 7 July 1987 was unjust, but found it insufficient for restoration to MS3. In this regard, the Board presumed that your commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding, based on the evidence before him, that you committed the foregoing
offenses and reduction in rate was an appropriate punishment. The Board concluded that your commanding officer was in the best position to resolve the factual issues and determine an appropriate punishment. The Board also concluded that your three nonjudicial punishments were sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.

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