DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 7814-18 
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 March 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 May 1981. After 
reenlisting in 1988, you suffered an unspecified medical event that prompted CT scan in 1989. 

Later treatment in resulted in diagnoses of alcohol dependence, multi-infarct dementia, 
developmental arithmetic disorder, and personality disorder. As a result, you were transferred to 
for further testing at Hospital. On 1 March 1990, the neurology 
department concluded the previous diagnoses, except for alcohol dependence, were not 
supported by their test results and observations. You subsequently used marijuana leading to the 
imposition of non-judicial punishment on 9 July 1990. As a result of your wrongful drug use, 
you were notified of administrative separation processing on 7 September 1990 and 
acknowledged your rights. You were medically cleared for separation on 14 September 1990 
and discharged on 7 November 1990 for misconduct with an Other than Honorable 
characterization of service. 

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. You argued that you suffered a stroke and should have been retired instead of being administratively separated for 
drug abuse. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board 
found that the medical evidence did not support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval 
service as a result of a stroke or any other disability condition. The 1 March 1990 neurology 
medical report did not identify any qualifying disability conditions for referral to the Disability Evaluation System and a medical board was not recommended. This led the Board to conclude there was no medical determination that you suffered from a disability condition that created an occupational impairment sufficient to find you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating. Second, the Board found that you were mentally responsible for the drug abuse that formed the basis for your administrative separation. Therefore, they determined that you were ineligible for disability processing since misconduct processing takes precedent over disability processing. So even if they Board had identified a qualifying disability, they concluded you were properly discharged for your misconduct. Third, the Board found that your medical conditions created insufficient mitigation to merit an upgrade to your characterization of service. Your drug abuse was serious enough to warrant an Other than Honorable 
characterization of service based on the finding that it qualified for a punitive discharge under 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The fact you were abusing alcohol and may have suffered 
a stroke was not persuasive enough evidence for the Board to overcome the seriousness of your 
misconduct. 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, 

4/1/2019 

Executive Director