DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 6047-17 
DEC 13 2017 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 1O 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 oflimitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 13 November 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. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 July 1947. You served for less 
than a year without disciplinary incident, and on 12 April 1948 you received a counseling 
warning for leaving post without authorization, unauthorized use ofa government vehicle, and 
reckless driving. On 28 April 1949, you were found guilty at Special Court-Martial for violating 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful Order) for 
carelessly handling a firearm, resulting in the serious wounding ofone individual and the 
endangerment ofothers. You were awarded two months confinement and forfeitures. 
On 24 August 1949, you were found guilty at Special Court-Martial for violating UCMJ, 
Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) (29 days total), and received a Bad Conduct Discharge 
(BCD) (suspended 6 months), extra duties, and forfeitures. On 17 September 1949, you again 
absented yourself from your appointed place ofduty and remained absent until you surrendered 
to military authorities on 17 October 1949. The BCD suspension was vacated on 
28 October 1949 and you were separated from the Navy on 7 December 1949 with a BCD based 
on "Court Martial Conviction" and assigned a reentry code ofRE-4. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors, such as your post-service conduct and your desire to receive 
military funeral honors. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant relief in your case because ofthe seriousness ofyour misconduct. Punitive discharges 
are authorized punishments of courts-martial and can only be awarded as an approved courtmartial 
sentence pursuant to a conviction for a violation of the UCMJ. A BCD can be ordered by 
a special court-martial, as it was in your case, as punishment for an offense less serious than one 
for which a dishonorable discharge could be given. The Board felt that there was insufficient 
evidence to support changing the BCD that you were awarded at SPCM to a more favorable 
characterization ofservice. The Board highlighted that your misconduct seriously endangered 
the lives ofyour fellow shipmates. There is no provision oflaw or in Navy regulation that 
allows for recharacterization ofservice due solely to the passage oftime. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. C_onsequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director