DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 157-18 JUN 17 2018 Dear This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were previously denied relief by the Board on 9 March 2011 and 15 January 2016. After careful and conscientious considenition of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 May 2018. 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge. You assert that your current back condition derived from a spinal tap conducted by the Navy in 1978. Additionally, you alleged trauma from racism experienced while you were in the Navy contributed to your misconduct. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board was unable to find any evidence in your record to support your assertion that a spinal tap procedure was the cause of your current back condition. Your record shows that you underwent a medical procedure to correct an undescended testicle on 28 June 1978 with no record ofcomplications or references to a spinal tap being conducted in conjunction with that procedure. Second, the Board found no evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service due to a disability at the time ofyour discharge. You were discharged for misconduct and not your inability to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating. Third, despite your assertions of racism, the Board found no evidence to support your contention that you were not responsible for your multitude ofmisconduct that ultimately led to your Special Court-Martial conviction on 9 February 1983 and Bad Conduct Discharge. The Board felt the Navy provided you ample opportunity to succeed despite your repeated incidents of misconduct that resulted in 10 non-judicial punishments and three courts-martial at two different commands. In the Board's opinion, this evidence directly contradicts your assertion that your exposure to racism at your command was somehow the root of your misconduct. So based on the Board's finding that you were responsible for your misconduct, the Board concluded you would not have been eligible for disability processing since misconduct processing superseded disability processing. 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 of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In 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 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director