DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

RLJ 
Docket o: 126 1-1 8 

JUL 1 9 2018 

5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)
Dear 5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(6)
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title I 0 of the United States Code, Section 1552. 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. 

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 application on its merits. A threemember 
panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 17 April 2018. 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and 
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 ofthe issue(s) 

involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence of record 

Your application was reviewed under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of2010, and the 

Under Secretary of Defense Memo of20 September 2011 (Correction of military records 

following repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654), the Board can grant a request to upgrade a discharge that 

was based on homosexuality when two conditions are met: (1) the original discharge was based 

solely on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) or similar policy~ and (2) there were no aggravating 

factors such as misconduct. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 1 September 1989. On 15 

February 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment for willfully burning a bed sheet. On 22 

March 1993, the Naval Investigative Service initiated an investigation upon a report that you 

committed an indecent assault upon your roommate aboard During 
the investigati on, you admitted to being a homosexual and that you lifted your roommate' s 

bedsheet to view him while he slept in his underwear due to your sexual attraction to him. 
Subsequently, you were notified of proposed administrative discharge processing by reason of 
homosexuality due to admission of being homosexual and for misconduct due to commission of 
a serious offense. You did not consult with counsel and waived your right to an administrative 
discharge board. Your Commanding Officer recommended a general under honorable conditions 
characterization of service. On 23 July 1993, the discharge authority directed a general under 
honorable conditions discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense 
and on 27 July 1993, you were discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your characterization of service and your contention that it was discovered you were homosexual 
during the DADT period. The Board notes that you were dual processed for separation for both 
misconduct (commission of a serious offense) and homosexuality. Given that your discharge 
contained an aggravating factor, specifically under circumstances that have an adverse impact on 
good order in a location subject to military control, the Board concluded your discharge was 
proper as issued and no change 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. ew 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director 

2