DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 783-17 
SEP 11 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of l 0 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 case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 2017. The names and votes of the 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in October 1974. On 23 April 1975, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for two days of unauthorized absence. In June ofthe same year, you were again involved in three separate incidents of unauthorized absences that led to additional non-judicial punishment on 23 July 1975. You would go on to earn five additional non-judicial punishments, primarily for unauthorized absences, before you were administratively discharged for misconduct on 16 November 1976 with a General characterization of service. During your brief period of service, you were 
diagnosed with neurasthenia on 17 July 1975 after reporting fatigue and depression for 
approximately a week. You were also diagnosed with a personality disorder on 13 September 
1976 that was to serve as the basis for your administrative separation until you commenced a 45 
day period of unauthorized absence that led to your discharge for misconduct. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to your 
characterization of service based on your neurasthenia diagnosis. You assert the Navy
wrongfully reinstated you to full duty while you were suffering from the condition and this led to your misconduct. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to show that you were suffering from neurasthenia after your diagnosis in July 1975. The 17 July 1975 medical report shows that you were asymptomatic after treatment and the diagnosis you received was that your neurasthenia was resolved. This fact combined with your statement on 13 September 1976 that you decided to take time off as needed and without regard to the command's authority convinced the Board that your misconduct was not the result of a disability condition but due to your unwillingness to conform to military regulations. The Board also relied upon the fact that you committed multiple incidents of misconduct prior to complaining of symptoms related to your neurasthenia condition. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice wairnnting a correction to your record and denied your application. 

Regarding your request to find a service connection between your neurasthenia condition and your military service, the Board determined it was outside the scope oftheir authority. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for determining whether former service members possess a disability that is connected to their military service. As you are aware, your neurasthenia diagnosis is already documented in your militai)' record. That evidence can be used by the VA to determine whether a service connection finding for neurasthenia is warranted. 

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 of regularity 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