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

SJN
Docket No: 07820-06
28 February 2007

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 22 February 2007. 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 establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 18 August 1976 at age 18. On 2 April 1978 you began a 183-day period of unauthorized absence (UA), ending on 2 October 1978. You were UA from 5 February 1979 to 2 February 1980. During this period, on 14 June 1979 you were apprehended by civil authorities for grand larceny and on 5 September 1979, you were convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. Shortly after your return to military control on 2 February 1980, you began a period of UA on 25 February 1980 that lasted 44 days, ending with your apprehension on 10 April 1980. During this period of UA, you were convicted by civil authorities of simple assault on 14 March 1980 and sentenced to 45 days confinement.

It appears that you submitted a written request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totaling over 18 months. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you would have conferred with a qualified military lawyer, been advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.

It also appears that your request for discharge was granted since you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 8 September 1980. As a 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 and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your very lengthy period of UA, the convictions by civil authorities for serious offenses, and especially your request for discharge to avoid trial for the periods of absence. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge was approved since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it now. 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