DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 6759-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 28 February 2019. 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in December 1964. 
On 8 July 1965, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for two orders violations. You 
suffered a compression fracture to your spine on 27 March 1966 resulting in your hospitalization. 
However, you were involved in two incidents of unauthorized absences during your treatment 
that resulted in your second non-judicial punishment on 28 April 1966. On 5 December 1966, a 
medical board recommended your return to full duty. However, you were again punished with 
non-judicial punishment on 16 December 1966 for another period of unauthorized absence. You 
were approved for returned to full duty status on 21 December 1966. On 15 March 1967, you 
were convicted at a Special Court-Martial for unauthorized absence and breaking restriction. 
You were again convicted by a Special Court-Martial on 21 August 1967 for unauthorized 
absence and failure to report to duty. As a result of your history of misconduct, you were 
notified of administrative separation processing for unfitness on 4 October 1967. As a result, 
you were discharged from the Navy on 20 November 1967 with an Other than Honorable 
characterization of service due to unfitness. Your characterization of service was upgraded to 
General under Honorable conditions on 1 September 1977 by the Naval Discharge Review 
Board (NDRB). The NDRB again reviewed your case on 2 June 1978 and determined you did 
not meet the qualifications for an Honorable characterization of service. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an Honorable discharge based 
on the Navy’s failure to properly treat your compression fracture of your back. Unfortunately, 
the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board concluded the evidence did not 
support an upgrade to your characterization of service based on the number and severity of your 
offenses during your brief period of active duty. You were punished with non-judicial 
punishment on three occasions and convicted by two courts-martial. In three of your 
unauthorized absences, you were apprehended and returned to military custody. In the Board’s 
opinion, these aggravating factors support the Other than Honorable characterization of service 
issued by the Navy in 1967. The fact you already received an upgrade to General under 
Honorable condition from the NDRB led the Board to conclude that you already received 
mitigating action regarding your characterization of service and no further relief was merited 
based on your claim of poor treatment. The Board found no evidence the standard of care was 
not met in the treatment of the compression fracture in your back. In fact, the Board noted that 
you were returned to full duty status in December 1966 and could have continued your Navy 
career but for your continued misconduct. Based on these factors, the Board felt you were 
properly processed for unfitness by the Navy and issued a reasonable characterization of service 
based on your misconduct. The Board determined no evidence exists that supports your 
assertion that the Navy failed to properly treat your medical condition. Accordingly, the Board 
found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 

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 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, 

3/4/2019 

Executive Director