DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 951-16 
NOV 21 2016 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by this Board on 9 June 2011. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 27 October 2016. 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 ofyour 
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, after careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board determined that while your request does contain 
new information not previously considered by the Board, it does not warrant relief. Accordingly, 
your request has been denied. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade in characterization 
of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for your separation to disability. 
You assert that you were not properly treated for mental conditions and were administered a drug 
that caused your misconduct and discharge. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your 
rationale for relief. The Board was unable to find evidence to support your assertion that you 
were administered Parafon Forte and it caused psychotic behavior that led to misconduct. In 
addition, the Board was unable to find any evidence that supports your assertion that military 
medical records were fabricated to support your discharge. The Board relies on a presumption of 
regularity to support the official actions ofNavy personnel and, in the absence ofsubstantial 
evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. In 
your case, a 27 January 1972 separation physical only noted a mild pes planus condition and 
your personality disorder. There was no evidence that you were suffering from psychotic 
behavior or that you were not responsible for your misconduct due to medication. In the absence 
ofevidence that you were not responsible for your behavior, the Board concluded that your three 
non-judicial punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and 2.52 overall trait average 
supports a General characterization ofservice. In fact, the Board opined that you were fortunate 
to be issued a General characterization of service after committing so much misconduct in 
slightly over one year of service. Therefore they concluded no upgrade to your characterization 
of service was warranted. With regard to your request for a change in the narrative reason for 
discharge to disability, the Board concluded insufficient evidence exists for the same reasons 
discussed above. There was no medical evidence presented to rebut the presumption that you 
were properly processed for your multiple incidents ofmisconduct that led the Navy to conclude 
you were unfit for military service due to multiple incidents ofinvolvement with military 
authorities. Accordingly, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in your case. 

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 of your 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 of regularity 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director