BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
WASHINGTON DC 20370-0100

RDZ : ecb
Docket No. 10129-07
9 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 4 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 17 February 1976 at age 17. on 19 March 1976 you were granted drug exemption for marijuana use but warned that further misconduct could result in an undesirable or punitive discharge. Unfortunately on 8 October 1976 you received nonjudicial punishment for seven instances of being absent from appointed place of duty. Subsequently you requested that you be issued an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling 124 days. Your request was granted and you there by avoided the stigma of court-martial conviction and the very real possibility of receiving a bad conduct accompanied confinement at hard labor.

In its review of your case the Board concluded that your discharge as issued was proper and that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid by court-martial was approved. The Board also took into account the lengthy period of your unauthorized absence as well as your prior disciplinary record consisting of seven instances of absence from your appointed place of duty.

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