DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

SMW
Docket No: 6187-06
3 November 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 1 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 estabi~sh the existence of pob ble material error or injustice.

The Board found you en±isced in che Navy on 21 December 1937 au age 21 and served without incident until 3 December 1989, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that ended about 102 days later. On 10 April 1990 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of this UA. The court sentenced you to forfeitures of pay, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 19 April 1990 you waived clemency review and, after the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 16 August 1991 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth, post-service conduct, and the fact that you had only one disciplinary action. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct, specifically, more than three months of UA. In this regard, no discharge is upgraded due to the passage of time or an individual’s post-service conduct, and your one instance of misconduct was sufficient to result in a conviction by SPCM and a BCD. Finally, the Board found that you waived clemency review of the SPCM. 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