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

SMW
Docket No: 1270-05
25 August 2005

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
Naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 24 August 2005. 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 6 October 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at the age of 19. On 24 January 1980 you received nonjudicial punishment for wrongful appropriation of personal property. The record further shows that you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on three occasions, totaling about 1,221 days, during the period from 15 March 1980 to 13 September 1983. The record shows all of these UA’s ended only after you were apprehended by civilian authorities.

Due to the command’s failure to file charges within the time limitations established by military law for your first period of UA of 883 days, you were only charged with the second and third periods of UA totaling 338 days. On 30 November 1983 you were convicted by a special court-martial of these UA’s. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for three months, $1,050 in forfeitures of pay, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After appellate review, the BCD was ordered executed. On 30 October 1984 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your contention that your UA’s were due to hardship. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive UA’s that totaled more than forty months. The Board also noted that your record contains no evidence that you ever suffered from a hardship, and you submitted no such evidence. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

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