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

Docket No. 773-18 
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 ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 9 February 2011. After careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe 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 26 July 2018. The names and votes ofthe 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 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 an upgrade to your 
characterization of service and to be placed on the disability retirement list. Unfortunately, the 
Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, regarding your disability retirement request, 
the Board found no evidence to support a finding that you were improperly rated by the Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) in 1967. So based on your assigned PEB 10% disability rating, the 
Board determined you were properly discharged with severance pay on 15 May 1967. They 
based their determination on statutory authority that limits placement on the disability retirement 
lists to those service members rated at 30% or higher by the PEB. The Board found no statutory 
authority to place a former service member on the disability retirement list based on the 
worsening of a disability condition after their discharge. Therefore, the Board concluded there 
was no error or injustice in your discharge and the Department of Veterans Affairs is the correct 
agency for providing compensation and treatment of service connected disability conditions that 
worsen after a service member is discharged due to a disability. Second, the Board found that 
you were properly issued a General characterization ofservice upon your discharge from active 
duty. Your 2.8 conduct trait average did not qualify you for an Honorable characterization of 
service and the Board concurred with its previous analysis that no error exists with regard to your 
characterization ofservice. The Board also considered whether an injustice exists due to your 
post-discharge accomplishments. While the Board deliberated on your educational achievements 
and was appreciative of your volunteerism and involvement with the Navy, they felt it 
inappropriate to change your characterization of service on that basis. In their opinion, your 
characterization of service under honorable conditions does not rise to the level of injustice since 
they believe it accurately describes your brief service with the Navy. The Board concluded that 
your military service was generally honest and faithful but significant negative aspects ofyour 
conduct, namely the incident ofassault that resulted in your non-judicial punishment, 
outweighed positive aspects of your military record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recoi.irse 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