DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 690-18 
AUG 12 2018 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 27 October 1986, 4 June 1999, 24 June 2002, and 13 
August 2002. 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. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered yo.ur application on 26 July 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and iajustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to have your narrative reason 
for separation to be changed to disability. You provided evidence that you diagnosed with 
schizophrenia upon your incarceration in 1979 and that you may have suffered from the onset of 
your condition while in the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your 
rationale for relief. While the Board found extensive evidence that you suffered from severe 
symptoms of schizophrenia upon your incarceration in 1979, the Board concluded that it lacked 
sufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to 
schizophrenia at the time of your discharge. In making their decision, the Board noted during 
your brief period of active duty that you were only involved in minor misconduct involving 
smoking without authorization and pushing another Marine. The Marine Corps determined your 
defective attitude, based primarily on your unwillingness to follow orders, made you unsuitable 
for continued service. In the Board's opinion, a poor attitude combined with minor misconduct 
does not support a finding that you suffered from schizophrenic symptoms at the time of your 
discharge. Nor does it support a finding that you should have been referred to a medical board 
based on the behavior you exhibited. Additionally, the Board determined that the medical 
opinions from your treatment during your incarceration occurred well after your discharge from 
the Marine Corps and only provided speculation regarding the genesis of your condition without 
addressing the severity ofyour symptoms. Therefore, the Board relied upon the 21 March 1978 
medical evaluation in your record that determined you did not suffer from any disabilities. The 
only symptoms noted on that date was for headaches and a mild lumbar strain. The Board felt 
this was strong objective evidence that your schizophrenia symptoms had either not yet 
manifested at the time ofyour discharge or were so mild that they did not warrant referral to the 
Disability Evaluation System. So based on their determination that it lacked evidence that you 
suffered from severe schizophrenia symptoms at the time ofyour discharge, the Board concluded 
that it lacked evidence to support a grant ofrelief in your case. 

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 ofnew 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 ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director