Dear  
 
This is in reference to your application 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 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 application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 24 January 1985.  In June1985, you were convicted in ,  Municipal Court of driving while intoxicated (DUI).  On 14 November 1985, you were awarded non-judicial punishment for DUI and for two specifications of unauthorized absence.  On 19 November1985, you were issued a “Page 13” (Page 13) counseling warning documenting your NJP.  The Page 13 expressly warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and administrative separation processing.  On 20 November 1985 you were convicted in , for DUI.  On 8 May 1986, you were awarded NJP for the wrongful use of a controlled substance and for two specifications of UA.  Prior to the imposition of NJP, your commanding officer vacated the suspended portion of your November 1985 NJP due to continued misconduct. 
 
On 30 April 1986, you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to a civilian conviction, misconduct due to drug abuse, and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  In the interim, on 13 May 1986 a Navy Medical Officer determined that you were a drug/alcohol abuser and not drug/alcohol dependent.  On 20 May 1986, you consulted with counsel and elected in writing to expressly waive your rights to submit statements to the separation authority and to present your case to an administrative separation board.  Ultimately, on 20 June 1986 you were discharged from the Navy for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an “RE-4” reentry code. 
 
Your contention that you suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 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.” 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that included, but were not limited to:  (a) you have had a problem with alcohol your entire life and that you are an alcoholic, (b) you would like the VA’s help, (c) you have been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and PTSD, (d) all your problems in the Navy were due to alcohol, and (e) you have been homeless for three years and need some help.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were without merit and insufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge or granting any other relief in your case. 
 
In accordance with the published guidance, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service.  However, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that there was no credible and convincing medical evidence indicating that you suffered from any type of mental health conditions while on active duty or that any such mental health conditions and/or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  As a result, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the argument that your pattern of misconduct can be attributed to any mental health conditions or their related symptoms.  The Board also noted the record shows you were notified of and waived your procedural rights in connection with your administrative separation.  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service.  Additionally, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  The Board also found that significant negative aspects of your conduct or performance outweighed any positive aspects of your military record, and that your overall service is not otherwise so meritorious to warrant a discharge upgrade.  In the end, the Board concluded that you received the correct discharge characterization and reentry code based on the seriousness of your misconduct, and that such discharge action was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found that your pattern of serious misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline clearly merited your receipt of an OTH discharge. 
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief, including any arrests or convictions.  In this regard, the Board noted that you are currently serving time in a  correctional facility for assault upon a police officer.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 
 
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 NR20190003003applying 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,