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 29 January 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, 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) (Kurta Memo, Hagel Memo, and Wilkie Memo collectively, “Clemency Memos”).   
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 5 January 1988.  On your pre-enlistment medical history and physical examination no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms were noted.  You also denied:  (a) ever being a patient in any type of hospital, and (b) ever being treated by clinics, physicians, or other practitioners within the past five (5) years for other than minor illnesses.  However, the record reflects that you were admitted to  Hospital in  on 20 April 1987 and discharged on 15 May 1987.  During your stay, you underwent group and individual psychotherapy multiple times.   
 
On 27 June 1989 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and wrongful appropriation.  On 14 September 1989 you received NJP for attempted larceny.   
 
On 22 September 1989 you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  You expressly waived your rights to consult with counsel, to submit a written statement, and to present your case to an administrative separation board.  Ultimately, on 1 November 1989 you were separated from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.   
 
As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 21 December 2020.  The Ph.D. noted that your in-service records did not contain evidence of psychological/behavioral changes indicating any mental health condition and/or PTSD.  The Ph.D. noted that throughout your disciplinary actions and administrative processing, there were no concerns warranting your referral to mental health resources.  The Ph.D. also noted that the civilian medical records you provided do not attribute your mental health condition to military service, nor do they indicate your in-service misconduct is mitigated by your mental health condition.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the evidence fails to establish you suffered from PTSD or any other mental health condition on active duty, or that your in-service misconduct is attributable to PTSD or any other mental health condition.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Clemency Memos.  These included, but were not limited to:  (a) you suffer from bipolar disorder, PTSD, and hearing loss, (b) you suffered a head injury at track practice pre-service, and (c) the VA informed you that you are not eligible for benefits.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
In accordance with the Clemency Memos, 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 nexus between any PTSD or mental health-related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions 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.  The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions.     
 
Additionally, the Board determined that you had an obligation to remain truthful on your enlistment paperwork.  Had you properly and fully disclosed your pre-service mental health treatment, you would have likely been disqualified from enlisting.  The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a sailor.  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.  The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief.  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. 
 
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,