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

SMW
Docket No: 6836-06
30 November 2006

This is in refer nce to your application for correction of your Naval record pur uant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, sec ion 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were r viewed 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 Na al record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

After careful an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found your enlisted in the Navy on 26 June 1978 at age 21 and served without incident until 29 November 1980, when you began a 285 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) that ended on 10 September 198 . On 12 September 1981 you began about a four day period of UA that ended on 16 September 1981. Although the record is incomplete, it appears that you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the four day period of UA. It also appears that on 9 November 1981 you requested an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the 85 day period of UA. At this time, you would have consulted with counsel and acknowledged the consequences of receiving such a discharge. After the separation authority approved your re est. for an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service, on 10 November 1981 you were so discharged. As result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court -martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and your desire to be eligible for veterans’ benefits. The Board also considered your c intention of a family illness and death. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were no sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge du to the seriousness of your misconduct, specifically, more than nine months of UA. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. Regarding your contention, there is no evidence in the record to show that the illness or death of a family member caused or contributed to your UA. But even if there we e such evidence, that would not excuse your misconduct. Fur her, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The names and vote of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
.

It is regretted hat 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, ‘t 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 pro able material error or injustice.

Sincerely,
A

2