Dear : 
 
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 you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo).  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 December 2020.  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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).  
 
You originally enlisted in the Navy on 16 July 1975 and received honorable discharges at the end of your first two enlistments in December 1977 and February 1982.  During your first two enlistments you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) four times:  (a) 7 March 1977 for committing nuisance, (b) 7 September 1980 for the violation of a lawful order, (c) 4 June 1981 for unauthorized absence lasting forty-four (44) days, and (d) 25 August 1981 for the violation of a lawful general order by not complying with engineering tag out procedures.  During your last enlistment, on 22 March 1984 you received NJP for the wrongful use of both cocaine and marijuana.   
 
Following your NJP for drug use, you were provided notice that you were being administratively processed for separation from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  In the interim, on 2 April 1984 you received NJP for assault.  Ultimately, on 13 April 1984 you were discharged from the Navy for misconduct due to drug abuse with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.   
 
Your contention that you suffered from a mental health condition (PTSD) on active duty was fully and carefully considered by the Board.  A qualified mental health provider (MHP) also reviewed your request for correction and provided the Board an AO dated 9 November 2020.  The MHP observed that your available in-service records did not reveal any evidence of in-service mental health symptoms or conditions.  The MHP noted that you submitted no medical documentation supporting a post-service clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition.  The MHP concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence of service-connected PTSD that may have mitigated your misconduct. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your contentions that included, but were not limited to:  (a) you had very good evaluation marks and you were decorated with the Navy-Marine Corps Medal for heroism, and (b) as a result of such incident you developed PTSD and started having performance and drug problems which have persisted to this day.  However, the Board concluded these mitigating factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge characterization or granting any other relief. 
 
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, the Board concluded that there was no convincing evidence that you suffered from PTSD while on active duty, or that any such mental health condition was related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related conditions or symptoms.  Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from the Board on 9 September 2019 to specifically provide additional documentary material.  Additionally, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  The Board observed that your overall active duty trait average during your third enlistment was 2.40 in conduct.  Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service.  The Board determined that your conduct marks during your enlistment were a direct result of your misconduct.  Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct merited your receipt of an OTH. 
 
The Board also carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions described above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.  
 
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,