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

TJR
Docket No: 2095-06
15 February 2007

This is in reference to your application for correction of your late father’s 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 13 February 2007. 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 late father’s 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.

Your father reenlisted in the Navy on 26 January 1965 after nearly 10 years of prior honorable service. He continued to serve without disciplinary incident until 22 October 1965, when he was convicted by civil authorities of assault with the intent to commit murder. As a result, he was sentenced to a period of confinement as prescribed by law.

On 9 November 1965, while in the custody of civil authorities, your father was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. At that time, he waived his right to consult with legal counsel and to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 16 November 1965 his commanding officer recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. This discharge authority approved this recommendation and on 20 December 1965 your father was so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your late father’s entire record and your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as his prior honorable service. It also considered your assertion that his death may have resulted from exposure to Agent Orange. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge because of the seriousness of his misconduct in the civilian community. Finally, the Board found that there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion. 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,

r

2