DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
		         2 NAVY ANNEX	
		WASHINGTON DC 20370-S 100

			TRG
	Docket No: 9440-07
						4 June 2008

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 28 May 2008. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 28 September 1973 at age 18. On 15 September 1974 you received nonjudicial punishment for use of marijuana. Subsequently, you were an unauthorized absentee on three occasions totaling about 12 years. You were convicted by a special court-martial of these periods of unauthorized absence and the sentence included a bad conduct discharge. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 12 January 1990.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all Potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and contention, in effect, that you became an unauthorized absentee because you had been diagnosed with a serious illness and you believed that the Navy doctors were interested in experimenting with your treatment. The Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterjzation of your discharge given your extremely lengthy periods of unauthorized absence, which indicated that you had no desire to return to the Navy. The Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

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