DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 8299-17 JAN 03 2018 Dear , This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretarv ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were previously denied relief by this Board on 31 January 1995 and the denial was affirmed by the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) on 21 February 1995. 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 30 November 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 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 ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all new and material evidence submitted in support thereof, your previous BCNR case file, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After completing a course ofinstruction at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS), you were appointed as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy (USNA) on June 1962. During your first three years of service at the USNA, your academic and conduct record was unblemished. However, records indicate that on December1965, you were accused of falsifying a muster report, which was considered a major conduct violation. In lieu ofprocessing for misconduct, you submitted a qualified resignation on or about 2 February 1966, which resulted in your disenrollment from the USNA and your transfer to the United States Navy Reserves on April 1966. 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 carefully considered your argument that you did not commit the alleged misconduct, that you were coerced into signing the qualified resignation, and that you were sununarily dismissed in violation ofapplicable rules and regulations. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. The Board highlighted that your version ofevents is contradicted by other evidence in the record, to include statements ofother parties involved and administrative processing documents. You assign significant weight to the fact that certain documents are missing from your record, to include a copy ofyour qualified resignation. However, the Board ascribed no significance to the fact that the USNA could not produce copies relating to an incident that occurred nearly 30 years prior to your initial BCNR petition. Per Secretary ofthe Navy Instruction 5420.193, when faced with an incomplete record, the Board relies on a presumption ofregnlarity to support the official actions ofpublic officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. The Board noted that record ofyour qualified resignation was documented on the Log ofClass A violations covering that period. The Board further highlighted that you did not claim that your qualified resignation was coerced until you submitted a letter to the USNA Superintendent in July of 1991, over twenty five years from your dismissal from the USNA. After thorough review ofyour case, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that USNA officials acted in bad faith or that the disciplinary process was conducted improperly. The Board found that the qualified resignation that you submitted in February 1996 was not the result ofan error or injustice warranting relief under 10 U.S.C. 1552. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 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. ln 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 ofappropriate jurisdiction. It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director