Last saved by: terry.bynum

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

SMW
Docket No: 5479-07
18 January 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, consisted your application on 16 January 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

On 12 October 1984, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 19. On 3 June 1985, you began a period of active service. On 25 June 1987, you had nonjudicial punishment for use of methamphetamines. On 2 July 1987, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. On 14 July 1987, a substance abuse report stated that you were being retained and scheduled for substance abuse treatment. During the period 25 October 1987 to 2 March 1988, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions that totaled about 126 days. On 9 March 1988, you were convicted by a special court-martial of these two periods of UA that totaled 126 days and sentenced to confinement, reduction in rank, forfeitures of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 28 March 1988, a medical evaluation stated that you were not dependent on drugs. After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 29 August 1988, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully considered all potential mitigation, such as your youth and
desire for a better discharge to establish eligibility for veterans’ benefits. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct, specifically, UA’s that totaled more than four months. The Board noted that your misconduct continued even after you were counseled and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. 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