DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 00791-16 
JAN 26 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 29 January 2016. You 
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of 19 March 2013, that your 
application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board of 
Correction ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 
F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Because your application was submitted with a new assertion not previously considered, the 
Board found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application based. The Board 
considered that you provided a statement in support ofyour claim and noted three separate 
episodes of care you received while on active duty in 1982 and 1983 for paranoid behavior, 
paranoia and paranoid tendencies. In this regard, your current request has been carefully 
examined by a three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records on 17 October 
2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any material 
submitted in support ofyour application. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record including your episodes of 
care, your efforts to obtain proof of your high school attendance, and your injury during boot 
camp, the Board determined that the statements, even though all were not previously considered 
by the Board, were insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 
A review ofyour recent application reveals that again your request must be denied. In this 
regard, the Board considered a medical record entry from 4 February 1983, that indicates that 
you discussed paranoia with the military medical service providers. The notes further indicate 
that you had received the maximum benefit ofmilitary hospitalization and that you were unable 
to be restored to full duty status. On 18 February 1983, you were notified by separation of 
reason ofthe convenience ofthe government. Navy Medical Command recommended 
separation on 3 March 1983, and noted your diagnosis ofPersonality Disorder. On 16 March 
1983, separation proceedings were initiated on the basis of misconduct with a recommendation 
for an other than honorable characterization ofservice. You record indicates that between 10 
December 1981 and 22 December 1982, you received five nonjudicial punishments and five 
counselings for various infractions including disobeying a lawful order, wrongful possession of 
marijuana, and failing to go to your appointed place ofduty. The Board noted that your 
administrative separation on the basis ofmisconduct was reviewed by the staff judge advocate on 
7 April 1983, and determined sufficient in law and fact. The Board concluded that your other 
than honorable discharge was properly issued, and that your medical conditions were properly 
reviewed and considered prior to your discharge. The Board determined that your discharge 
with an other than honorable characterization was not erroneous or unjust. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. 

In the absence ofsufficient material evidence for reconsideration, the decision ofthe Board is 
final, and your only recourse is to initiate action, at no cost to the Board, to a court ofappropriate 
jurisdiction. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director