DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 496-18 AUG 05 2018 Dear This is in reference fo your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 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 case on its merits. A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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 ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy Reserve on 14 March 1972. On 7 June 1972, you admitted that you failed to disclose to your recruiter a preservice history of using a number of controlled substances. This admission formed the basis for your administrative separation for fraudulent enlistment. You were notified ofadministrative separation processing on 9 June 1972 and acknowledged your rights on 19 June 1972. On 2 August 1972, you were discharged due to fraudulent enlistment with a General characterization of service. This Board previously denied your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service on 7 December 2011. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve military disability benefits. You assert that you were mentally incompetent at the time ofyour discharge and provided a 2 July 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosis for service connected depression as evidence. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board felt it lack the evidence to support a finding that you were mentally incompetent at the time of your discharge. The Board noted there was no evidence from 1972 declaring you incompetent and the only evidence that you received mental health treatment was a statement in the 2 July 2015 VA report that records your statement that you were seen by a mental health provider a couple months after your discharge. In the Board's opinion, this was insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to a disability condition in 1972. Second, the Board determined you were ineligible for military benefits based on your administrative separation for fraudulent enlistment. In addition, the Board felt it inappropriate, in any case, to grant disability benefits to a Servicemember who fraudulently procured an enlistment into the military. The Board found your four page handwritten admission very credible evidence that you entered the Navy fraudulently. Based on all of these reasons, the Board concluded no relief was warranted in your case. 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. New 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