Docket No: 1811-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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, policies, and the relevant Advisory Opinion as well as your response to the Advisory Opinion. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 3 January 1961. You were embarked aboard the during the periods 13 to 26 March and 1 to 5 April 1962. On 12 January 1965, you were discharged with an honorable character of service. In your application to the Board, you state that on 19 March 1962, while embarked aboard the , a fellow crew member fell overboard and you jumped in after him to save his life. In recognition of this life saving action, you contend that your command indicated that you would recommended for the Navy and Marine Corps Medal (NM) for herorism. You provide a Buddy Statement from former , USMC, who served with you on active duty in the Marine Corps and was witness to your actions. provided a detailed account of your actions onboard the and stated that out of nowhere, you jumped in and saved a man’s life from drowning. The available information indicates that on 30 November 2020, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) considered a request from you for the NM for your actions on 19 March 1962. HQMC denied your request, stating that a review found no evidence which would indicate an awarded recommendation for the NM was ever officially originated. HQMC informed you that if you were unable to administratively complete the award nomination, you had the option to submit a request to the Board. As part of the review process, the Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals reviewed your request, and issued an Advisory Opinion dated 10 June 2021. The Advisory Opinion determined that you are not entitled to the NM and recommended that the Board deny your request. The Advisory Opinion further stated that it is unclear that the Board has statutory authority to grant the relief requested. The Advisory Opinion was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to include the statement from Corporal . The Board also considered the recommendations and discussion contained within the Advisory Opinion. The Board noted on 6 January 2020, National Archives informed you that its holdings contain Deck Logs for the , and a review of those logs from 11 March 1962 to 5 April 1962 did not reveal a reference to the incident you described. Complimentary scans of the logs from 18 March to 2 April 1962 were provided to you. The Board reviewed the logs submitted with your application and likewise noted that the act of you jumping overboard to save an individual are not documented in the provided Deck Logs. The Board also noted that HQMC had previously reviewed your request and determined that your record did not contain evidence that you ever received a recommendation for the NM from your chain of command. Taking into consideration the totality of information, the Board found that available evidence you provided does not meet the requirements for the submission of the NM, a Personal Military Decoration, to the Board. The Board noted two discrepancies in your submission: first that you had not provided evidence or information that you exhausted your efforts in obtaining an award nomination from a person with official standing onboard the in 1962, and second, your witness statement was not in the proper form as described by SECNAVINST M-1650.1. SECNAVINST M-1650.1 provides guidance on the criteria for Personal Military Decoration submissions beyond time limits, as in your case. Appendix 8A of SECNAVINST M-1650.1 states that “if it is impossible to assemble a complete official award nomination, for example in cases where every person with official standing to originate the nomination is deceased, then no action can be taken by the Department via the Section 1130 of Title 10 or the normal administrative awards processes. In such cases, the veteran (or next of kin of a deceased veteran) has the right to petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for relief.” First, the Board found that you did not establish that you could not assemble a complete official award nomination. The Board also noted that while the statement you provided gives an admirable description of your actions, SECNAVINST M-1650.1 requires in part that Witness Statements be notarized. You can find detailed information on Witness Statements in Tab 3 of Appendix 2D, “How to Prepare a PMD Nomination,” of SECNAVINST M-1650.1. The Board acknowledged that the post-time limit submission of a request such as yours for an NM for actions taken in 1962 is cumbersome. However, the Board found that it is limited by SECNAVINST M-1650.1’s guidance on the submission of such awards and that it cannot take action on your request without either a complete official award nomination or evidence that every person with official standing to originate the nomination is deceased or unavailable. Furthermore, the Board noted that the submission of an official award nomination or evidence of unavailability does not necessarily guarantee that favorable action will be taken. The Board is still required to review the fundamental elements of an NM nomination as outlined in Appendix 2D, to include an Award Recommendation, a Summary of Action, Eyewitness Statements (if required, and in proper form), Other Supporting Documentation (if available), and the Proposed Citation. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 9/8/2021 Executive Director