Docket No: 9995-18 10494-06 Ref: Signature date Dear : This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 8 October 2018. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 29 January 2020. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and all material submitted in support of your application. In addition, the Board considered the 21 June 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional. The AO was provided to you on 27 June 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. You presented as new matters, medical records from a civilian mental health treatment facility listing a diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, antisocial personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and treatment from January 2017 to August 2018. You also submitted the results of a two-hour psychological evaluation from November 2017. You contend that you he had a mental health issue that was undiagnosed and untreated prior to or during your service, which caused the behavioral issues for which you were discharge. You also contend that you were not receiving medication for your condition during service. You state that you are currently being treated and have been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, antisocial personality disorder and PTSD. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the new matters you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice and thus not material. 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.” As part of the review process, a Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request 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 in your November 2006 request to the Board, you contended that you were young and inexperienced at the time of your discharge. In that prior petition, you also contended that you were pressured into accepting an administrative discharge. The AO noted in your current request that you submitted a personal statement that you were experiencing undiagnosed symptoms of mental health conditions during your military service, which has since been diagnosed. The medical notes state that during your period of treatment you were psychiatrically hospitalized, arrested four times, and evicted. You submitted the results of a two hour psychological evaluation from November 2017 to determine your fitness to proceed regarding charges of criminal mischief. That evaluation relates that, after causing a disturbance at your place of residence, where you yelled at the apartment manager and threw items out of your window, you were arrested. During the evaluation, you reported a history of involvement with the legal system, beginning with a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon at age 13 and later gang involvement for “vandalism, stealing beer, that stuff.” In adulthood, you reported criminal involvement with “checks, like I had a theft. Or returning stuff to the store and trying to get the money for it. Eating food at restaurants and not paying, assault IV domestic and failing to perform the duties of a driver.” During the evaluation, you expressed a belief that you were the reincarnation of. You were assigned a provisional diagnosis of “bipolar I disorder” with psychotic features and antisocial personality disorder. Your submission reflects that you have a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. The AO noted that this is a description of lifelong character traits. As such, you would have been demonstrating behaviors consistent with your personality disorder during your military service. However, that lifelong personality disorder is not attributed to military service. You also have a diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, PTSD, and a provisional diagnosis of bipolar I disorder with psychotic features. The AO determined that, unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence that you were experiencing these diagnoses during your military service twenty years ago and based on your 2017 diagnosis. You report significant life experiences, including incarceration, substance use, and homelessness since your discharge from military service, which could potentially be precipitants for these diagnoses, especially your diagnosis of PTSD. The AO opined that, while it is possible that you may have been experiencing unrecognized symptoms of bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, during your military service, it is at least as likely that your misconduct committed during your military service can be attributed to your long-standing personality disorder. The AO determined that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to a mental health condition experienced during military service other than antisocial personality disorder. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, contentions, and desire to have your characterization of service upgraded after 20 years. However, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to a mental health condition experienced during military service other than antisocial personality disorder. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board, in its review, discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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.