DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8668-16 
DEC 15 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 28 September 2016. You 
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of28 August 1987, 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 new information not previously considered, the 
Board found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application based on the new 
assertions and new evidence provided. In this regard, your current request has been carefully 
examined by a three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records on 18 
September 2017. The names and votes ofthe members .of the panel will be furnished upon 
request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any 
material submitted in support ofyour application. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its understanding ofthe issues 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe available record, the Board determined that 
the statements you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were 
insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. In this regard, the 
Board considered your statement that you were not effectively represented at the 20 January 
1970 general court martial proceedings that resulted in you pleading guilty to the charges before 
you. You were found guilty ofmurder (approved conviction ofvoluntary manslaughter). The 
Court sentenced you, in part, to a dishonorable discharge. The Board reviewed your request for 
an upgrade to your service characterization as a matter ofclemency. The Board considered your 
contention that your attorney did not provide one shred ofevidence on your behalf nor did he 
arrange for witnesses to testify for you. The Board also noted that you state that immediately 
before the incident you were in sickbay and you were given medication. You contend that you 
have no recollection ofthe events for which you were convicted. Finally, the Board considered 
your post-service accomplishments and contributions as a stone mason, business owner, and 
employer ofup to nearly 60 employees. 

The Board reviewed the available records from your court martial proceedings and determined 
that even in consideration ofthe mitigating information you provided, you appear to have been 
afforded court martial proceedings that were without error or injustice. The Board found that the 
circumstances that surrounded the incident for which you were convicted and your post-service 
conduct do not overcome the gravity ofthe charge for which you were convicted. The Board 
concluded that your dishonorable discharge was properly issued and did not merit an upgrade. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. YOU are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director