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

Docket No: 8641-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

This is in reference to your application of 18 September 2018 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2020.  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.  In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional dated 16 August 2019, which was previously provided to you. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24 February 1997.  Your original service record was incomplete and did not contain any documentation pertaining to your separation from the Navy.  Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law and in good faith.  A review of your record makes reference to a non-judicial punishment (NJP) you received on 18 May 2001, but it is unclear what you were charged with or what the outcome of the proceedings were. Additionally, on 22 May 200, you received an Administrative Remarks (Page 13) concerning a five-hour period of unauthorized absence.  In your performance evaluation ending 15 July 2000, it states, in part, under MilitaryBearing that “[a]lthough improving, has been counseled numerous time for being late for work, and was counseled on off-duty conduct which resulted in Base Security involvement.” On 18 December 2001, you signed a Page 13 entry that states you were not recommended for reenlistment and were being assigned a restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4 due to misconduct.  Based on your Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), on 18 December 2001, you received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 

You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service.  Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” the 25 August 2017 memorandum, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.”
 
A Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition during your service.  The AO noted that you denied mental health symptoms in your discharge physical. In your current request for review, you submitted excerpted documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) listing a diagnosis of 70% service-connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder.  The AO noted that you submitted a statement that you incurred PTSD during deployments to Iraq and Bosnia, in which you witnessed the deaths of many civilians.  No additional records were available for review.  The AO noted that you have a diagnosis of PTSD that can be attributed to military service. The AO stated that it appears that your misconduct and poor performance began after your return from Kosovo.  It is possible to consider tardiness and UA to be avoidance symptoms of emerging PTSD.  There is insufficient information regarding the off-duty conduct referenced in the performance evaluation and the NJP to render an opinion regarding a potential connection between those behaviors with your mental health. The AO opined that based on the available information, there is evidence to attribute some of your misconduct to PTSD incurred during military service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, the stress of Iraq and Bosnia, and progress reports from the VA.  The Board also considered your assertion that you incurred PTSD during your deployments to Iraq and Bosnia.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your conduct, and the lack of information regarding your off-duty conduct and NJP. The Board concurred with the AO’s statement that more information is required to render an opinion regarding a potential connection between your behavior and mental health, even though it was opined that there is evidence to attribute some of your misconduct to PTSD incurred during military service. 

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 the 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,