DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				     2 NAVY ANNEX
		WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00 

						CRS
						Docket No: 6143-06
										5 September 2006

This is in reference to your application on behalf of your late son for correction of his 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 23 August 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 son’s 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 your son reenlisted in the Navy on 22
January 2004 after more than three years of prior active service.
The record reflects that he was declared a deserter on 5 May
2006. On 29 June 2006 he was shot and killed while still in a
deserter status.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your request to change your son’s status as a deserter. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in his status, given that he had chosen to be an unauthorized absentee at the time of his death. Therefore, the Board concluded that no change ~o the deserter status is warranted. 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