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

Docket No: 5394-17 
DEC 15 2017 

Dear : 
This is in reference to your application for correction ofthe naval record of your father, 
, pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 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 application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 18 September 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. 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 ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour father's naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Your fatherbegan a period of active duty in the Navy on 14 May 1939. His service record 
reflects various disciplinary actions including one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence 
from sentry post of duty, two summary court martials for several offenses included absence 
without authority, missing ships movement, resisting arrest, and refusal to obey a lawful order. 
On 2 March 1943, at general court martial proceedings, he was found guilty of scandalous 
conduct tending to the destruction of good morals, specifically two specifications of oral sex in a 
public toilet in Australia with a young civilian male. The Court sentenced him to confinement 
and a dishonorable discharge. He was discharged from the Navy on 18 March 1945, with a 
dishonorable discharge pursuant to the sentence ofthe general court martial proceedings. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material or injustice. The Board 
considered your family's request for an upgrade to his characterization of service as a matter of 
clemency. When making its determination, the Board carefully reviewed the letter submitted on 
his behalf and considered that your father had a strained relationship with his Commanding 
Officer (CO), and was in his "crosshairs." The Board noted that your father believed that his CO 
arranged to slip him a "mickey" and that your father recalled waking up in the brig and being 
told he had engaged in a homosexual act. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your father's character of service under "Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. Please be advised that the DADT Repeal 
Act provides service discharge review boards with the authority to grant requests to change 
character ofservice when the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in 
place prior to enactment of it, and the circumstances ofthe discharge do not include aggravating 
factors. The Board concluded the repeal ofthe DADT policy is not sufficient to warrant relief in 
your case, given the aggravating factor of the commission ofa homosexual act with a young 
male openly in a public restroom. The Board noted the assertion that your father was drugged 
and set up by his CO, but noted that he had the opportunity to present a defense at the court 
martial processing and was nonetheless found guilty. The Board concluded that given that the 
court martial proceedings were executed without error or injustice, and in light ofthe 
aggravating factors surrounding the sexual act, the Board found that the current characterization 
was properly issued. 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