DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				    2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 1 00 

							CRS 
							Docket No: 7483-06
											21 September 2006

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of the title 10 of the United States Code section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board of Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2006. Your allegations of e 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 the L you en1ist~J in the Marine Corps on it January 1961. The record reflects that you received three nonjudicial punishments and were convicted by a summary court-martial. The offenses included unauthorized absences totaling 29 days.

A general court-martial convened on 18 August 1964 and found you guilty of unauthorized absences totaling 307 days and breaking restriction. The court sentenced you to hard labor for 24 months, forfeitures of $70 per month for 24 months, reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge. You received the bad conduct discharge on 4 June 1965.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your wife’s contention that you were captured and held by~ the Viet Cong. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the fact that your unauthorized absences totaled more than 11 months. In this regard, there is no evidence that you ever served in Vietnam.

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