DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

RDZ ecb
Docket No. 10581-07
12 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 11 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 12 June 2001 at age 18. On 26 November 2002 you were tried and convicted pursuant to your pleas of guilty to three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 385 days. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor for 51 days, reduction to fireman recruit and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You were so discharged on 22 October 2003 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

In its review of your application the Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating and extenuating matters such as your youth and your contention that your UA5 were result of your
mother’s and grandfather’s illnesses. Nevertheless the Board concluded that these matters could not overcome the serious and repetitive nature of your misconduct consisting of three periods of UA totaling 385 days.

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