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

Docket No: 8476-17/ 
           8402-09 
APR 22 2019 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request received 4 October 2017. You 
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter that your applications had been 
disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval 
Records procedures that conformn 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. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge. The Board considered your contentions that the convening authority did not 
approve the bad conduct discharge (BCD) and that nowhere in the record does the convening 
authority say the BCD is suspended pending review. Additionally, you also contend that you 
suffer from daily chronic migraines due to the                  water and because of your type of 
discharge, you are refused care by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board concluded 
these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief because of the significant misconduct you 
committed while on active duty that included a special court-martial (SPCM), which resulted in a 
BCD. 

In regard to your first contention, the convening authority approved your BCD, but he did not 
execute the BCD because the punitive discharged awarded by a court-martial is automatically 
reviewed by a military appellate court.  A punitive discharge such as a BCD is executed after 
appellate review is completed. Your BCD was executed after appellate review. Accordingly, 
the Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. 

In regard to your second contention, that you were exposed to contaminated water at                  , 
please note that Public Law 112-154, Honoring America' s Veterans and Caring for 
Families Act of 2012, requires the Veterans Administration to provide health care 
to Veterans with one or more of 15 specified illnesses or conditions. You should contact the 
nearest office of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning your right to apply for benefits 
or appeal an earlier unfavorable determination. 

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