DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 8830-l6 
SEP 27 2017 

Dear

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 l 552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three­member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in ex~cutive session, considered your application on 5 July 2017. The names and votes ofthe members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 September 1981. On 8 August 1983, you received medical care for exposure to a low pressure air explosion in your work space. You stated in part that you experience a stabbing pain in your ear while swimming in the pool, afterwards the pain became severe. It was noted you had a large perforation in the Tympanic Membrane and you were diagnosed with Severe Otitis Extema with perforation. On 18 October 1983, your hearing tested within normal limits, the tympanic membrane was clear, mobile, and normal. You were found fit for duty. On 16 November 1983, during a medical examination you continued to claim to have hearing loss after the specialist could find nothing wrong and your hearing was within normal limits. You became uncooperative with the physician during the evaluation and refused further testing to determine the extent of any physical damage to your hearing. You did not follow treatment instructions, which caused an infection that aggravated the problem. 
 
You served for two years without disciplinary incident but, during the period from 19 October 1983 to 9 March 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions. Your offenses were disrespect toward a commissioned offer, willfully disobeying a commissioned, insubordinate conduct toward a commissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful order, breach of peace and dru11ken and disorderly conduct.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason ofmisconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 24 March 1984, an ADB recommended discharge under OTH conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority approved and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct. You were discharged on 14 June 1984. 

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. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service achievements and contentions that your misconduct was due to a personality change after the injury to your ear and that you received a head injury or concussion. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because ofthe seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in four JPs. In regard to your contentions, the Board was not persuaded by the mitigating assertion that your misconduct was due to your ear injury or a concussion or a head injury, the recqrds reflects you were diagnosed with a perforated ear drum, which was aggravated by your refusal to comply with treatment instructions. There is no evidence in your record and you submitted none to support your assertion of having a head injury or concussion. Accordingly, you application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 
Sincerely, 

Executive Director