DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 5930-17 
DEC 26 2017 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of I 0 U.S.C. § 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform toLipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 22 July 1981. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 14 December 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 naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory 
opinion contained inBUMED ltrBUMED 261 AHB JAB of22May1981; a copy ofwhich was 
provided to you as part of your first application. 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 Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge and 
upgrade to your characterization ofservice. You assert that you were suffering from an 
untreated mental illness at the time ofyour discharge. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with 
your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the 
advisory opinion contained in BUMED ltr BUMED 261 AHB JAB of22 May 1981. 
Specifically, the Board was unable to find any evidence in your record to show that you were not 
criminally responsible for the misconduct that led to your discharge from the Marine Corps. 
Therefore, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged for misconduct vice a 
disability since service regulations directed misconduct processing to superseded disability 
processing. The fact you were diagnosed with schizophrenia in May 2017 was not persuasive 
evidence to the Board since the diagnosis was issued almost 40 years after your discharge from 
the Marine Corps. Without additional medical evidence that shows a nexus between your 
current diagnosis and your culpability for your misconduct in 1977, the Board felt it was 
inappropriate to change the narrative reason for your separation. For the same reason, the Board 
felt it lacked evidence to change your characterization ofservice based on the 2017 diagnosis. 
While current DOD guidance allows for liberal consideration ofyour claim that your mental 
illness mitigates the misconduct that formed the basis for your separation and characterization of 
service, the Board could not see a nexus between a diagnoses issued 40 years after your 
discharge and the misconduct you committed while in the Marine Corps. The fact you were 
medically evaluated and cleared for separation in 1978 also influenced the Board's decision 
since it indicates you were not suffering from any disqualifying disability conditions at the time 
ofyour discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined no error or injustice exists in your case. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence ofsufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director