DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 2967-17 
SEP 12 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of22 February 2017, that your application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with new Board for Correction ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lips man v. Secretmy ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

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 of Naval 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 A review of your record shows that on 11 September 1980, you reported a right arm fracture 
existing prior to service on your entrance physical. This medical issue was not a bar to your 
entrance onto active duty and on 24 September 1980 you began a period of active duty in the 
U.S. Marine Corps. On 6 March 1981, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence from your appointed place ofduty. On 27 August 1981, you again received JP for an unauthorized absence of5 days. On 18 November 1981, you were convicted by a Special Court-Martial for 42 days of unauthorized absence. Another Special Court-Martial convicted you ofthree specifications of unauthorized absence on 26 August 1982. Due to your repeated misconduct, you were discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps on 1 November 1982 with an Other than Honorable characterization of service. 

The Board carefully considered your argument that you deserve a disability discharge based on the fact that your right arm fracture was "service connected," as evidence by the Department of Veteran's Affairs 01 A) determination of "service connection for treatment purposes only." However, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board detennined there was no evidence to support your assertion that you were unfit for continued naval service due to a disability. You service record did not contain evidence supporting your assertion and you provided no evidence ofa disability. The Board highlighted that your entrance physical reported a pre-service broken arm that did not disqualify you from entry. Further, no other evidence exists in your medical record that an injury was incurred or aggravated while on active duty. Even ifevidence of an in-service broken arm existed, the Board was unable to draw a nexus between the injury and the misconduct that led to your discharge. Finally, even ifthere was evidence of a qualifying disability, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged for misconduct since the disability processing would have been superseded by misconduct processing. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice wa1Tanting a correction to your record and denied your application. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. You are enti tied 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 the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision of the 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director