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

Docket No. 2954-17 
SEP 12 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for con·ection of your 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three­member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 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 of this 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. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. 

You enlisted in the U.S. Navy and began a period of active duty service on 28 July 1972. You served for less than a year without disciplinary incident, and on 20 September 1972 you received non-judicial punishment for violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 113 (Misbehavior of a Sentinel). On 8 March 1973, you again received non-judicial punishment for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence). On 25 April 1973, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed you with "Manic Depressive Psychosis, Depressed Type, in Remission" and on 3 May 1973 a Physical Evaluation Board determined that you were unfit for duty and rated you 10% disabled. On 12 June 1973, you were separated with a General (under Honorable conditions) characterization ofservice for "Physical Disability," and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. 

The Board carefully considered your argument that you deserve an increase in your disability rating from 10% to 30% due to your diagnosis of "Manic Depressive Psychosis, Depressed Type, in Remission." Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the Physical Evaluation Board that 
found you unfit for duty and rated you 10% disabled. Specifically, the Board determined that your disability condition did not warrant a disability rating greater than 10% in May 1973; the time period which you were discharged from the U.S. Navy. You did not provide any evidence for the Board' s consideration to show that your condition was not properly evaluated by the Navy at the time of your discharge. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice pertaining to your disability rating that warrants a correction to your record and denied your application. 

The Board, in its consideration of your request to upgrade your characterization of service from a General to an Honorable, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the potential impact ofyour disability had on your actions. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because ofyour repeated misconduct. The Military Personnel Manual, Section 1910-304, dictates that a General characterization of service is warranted when the quality of the member's service has been honest and faithful; however, significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweighed positive aspects of the member's service record. Finally, there is no provision of law or in Marine Corps regulations that allows for a change to the characterization ofservice due solely to the passage oftime. Accordingly, your 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director