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

TJR
Docket No: 2738-07
16 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, considered your application on 15 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 10 March 1989 at age 18 and began a period of active duty on 14 March 1989. On 23 July 1993 you reenlisted in the Navy and served without disciplinary incident until 10 August 1995, when you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of making false official statements, larceny of government property in excess of $3,860.91, and participating in sexual acts with a woman who was not your wife. You were sentenced to confinement for 60 days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 11 February 1997 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, post service conduct, personal statement, numerous issues, and desire to reenlist. It also considered your requests to upgrade your discharge,. change your narrative reason for separation, restoration in paygrade, change of your reenlistment code, and issuance of back pay.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant favorable action to your multiple requests because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. 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 PFIEFFER
		Executive Director