DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 6475-15 
MAY 2 01016 


This is i n reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 
Although your application was not filed i n a timely manner, the Board found it in the i~terest of justice to waive the statute of l imitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, si tting in executive session, considered your appl i cation on 1 April 2016. 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered the Navy Reserve in November 2002 . You were recorded as being in an unauthorized absence status for drills in September 2003, January 2004, March 2004 , May 2004, and July 2004 . As a result, you were notified of administrative separation processing by certified mail i n July 2004 and were discharged on 6 August 2004 for unsatisfactory participation and issued a characterization of General. 

he Board carefully considered your a rguments that you deserve a disability discharge because you were diagnosed with acute rnyelogenous leukemia in July 2004. You contend that you were feeling poorly in 2004 and this was the reason you failed to report to Reserve drills as requi red. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. The Board concluded the re was no error in your case. You do not di spute the fact you failed to report t o dr ills so the Navy had a proper basis to separate you for your misconduct. The larger question was whether an injustice exists in your case to change your record despite the existence of misconduct. The Board determined the mitigation offered by your l eukemia· condition was insufficient to change the narrative reason for your discharge . Even though the Board was sympathetic to your story, it could not overlook the fact that you intent i onally avoided your military obligation to show up for work. There was no evidence you .attempted to -contact your command and seek help with your condition prior to your diagnosis in July 2004. This led the Board to conclude that you deserved to be separated for your actions. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or i njustice warranting fa correction to your r ecord and denied your application. The names and votes of t he 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 r econsider its decision upon submission of new evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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,