DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No. 925-16 
OCT 31 2016 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 6 October 2016. Your allegations oferror 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, 
regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in April 1979. 
Between 28 April 1979 and 22 December 1979, you were absent without leave for 
approximately 230 days resulting in referral ofcharges to a Special Court-Martial. As a result, 
you submitted a request to be administratively separated for the good ofthe service in lieu of a 
court-martial. Your request was approved on 18 February 1982 and you were discharged on 1 

March 1982 with an Other than Honorable characterization ofservice. On 17 November 1983, 
the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request to upgrade your characterization of 
service. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were improperly denied medical 
treatment after suffering a "blackout" in the boiler room ofyour ship. You imply that you have 
suffered disabilities as a result ofthe Navy's failure to diagnose and administer proper treatment 
ofyour disability. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. In 
reviewing your record and evidence presented, the Board noted that there was no evidence in 
your record to support your assertion. This lack ofmedical evidence supports your version of 
events but was inconsistent with the fact that you were treated by medical for other issues while 
in the Navy. This led the Board to conclude that, without additional corroborating evidence, 
your assertion regarding the boiler room incident cannot be substantiated. Additionally, the 
Board noted that your conditions first manifested in 1997 according to your physician. In the 
Board's opinion, the approximately 17 years gap in time from your discharge to the first 
reporting of your symptoms was too distant to be able to determine ifthere was some nexus 
between your current condition to your service in the Navy. Finally, the Board determined that 
even if you were suffering from a disability warranting referral to a medical board, your 
misconduct processing would have taken precedence over the disability processing. Therefore 
the Board concluded that you were properly processed for your misconduct and no evidence 
exists to support a finding that the Navy failed to exercise the proper standard of care for you 
during your period ofactive. duty. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or 
injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. The names and 
votes of the members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state 
personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board 
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the ·Board 
determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the 
evidence ofthe record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 

You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew evidence 
within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously 
considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. In this regard, it is important to 
keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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