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

BAN
Docket No. 08732-07
18 March 2008

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

You have applied for a correction to your record for an error that allegedly occurred in 1965. Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. Failure to file within the prescribed three years may be excused in cases where the Board finds that it is in the interests of justice to do so. In your case, you neglected to assert your claim for an inordinately long period of time without justification. You have provided no compelling evidence as to why you did not seek to have the alleged error corrected earlier. Accordingly, the Board found that it is not in the interests of justice to excuse the three year time limit in your particular case.

Even though the Board determined that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the three-year time limitation, on March 17, 2008, a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session nevertheless considered the substantive allegations contained in your application. 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 there of, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/206 of 28 Feb 08, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comrn~nts contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied on both procedural and substantive grounds. 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 also 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