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

								 TRG
	Docket No: 9476-07
 	4 June 2008

I
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 3 June 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 23 May 1979 at age 20 after about six months of service in the Army National Guard. During the period from 20 August 1979 to 20 March 1980 you received nonjudicial punishment and were convicted by a special court-martial. Your offenses were three periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 111 days. On 29 April 1980 you were restored to duty from confinement. On 20 May 1980 you began another period of unauthorized absence which lasted until you surrendered on 4 December 1980, a period of about 194 days.

On 27 January 1981 you were convicted by a special court-martial of the 194 day period of unauthorized absence. The court sentenced you to forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor and a bad conduct discharge. After completion of appellate review, the bad conduct discharge was issued on 13 September 1982.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service in the Army National Guard and your contention that you were told the discharge would be automatically upgraded after a period of time. The Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your frequent and lengthy periods of unauthorized absence. There is no provision in the law or regulations which would require recharacterization of a discharge based solely on the passage of a period of time. 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 PFIEFFER
Executive Director