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

Docket No: 8282-17/ 
           1738-79
APR 18 2019

Dear : 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration received on 20 September 2017. You 
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter dated 16 July 1980, that your 
applications had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board of 
Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 
F.Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, 
the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable 
material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board 
found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been 
carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 
sitting in executive session on 9 January 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel 
will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 
your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of 
your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge. The Board considered your contention that there were circumstances that were 
not given consideration at the time of your discharge, such as: family emergency, cultural 
consideration, as well as maturity and emotional development. Your spouse was experiencing a 
high risk pregnancy at the time, you were under a lot of stress, and having difficulty focusing. 
In regards to your contention, the Board was sympathetic, but you provided no evidence that you 
sought assistance via your chain of command. In addition, the Board concluded that given your 
misconduct, which resulted in two non-judicial punishments (NJP) and your request for an other 
than honorable (0TH) discharge to avoid trial by court-martial outweighed your desire to 
upgrade your discharge. The Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge action 
that would warrant a change in your characterization of service. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. 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 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 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