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

Docket No: 1518-20 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
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 you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitations was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, including 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). The Board also requested and reviewed a 16 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional, a copy of which was provided to you, and to which you did not provide a response. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 16 April 1987. You engaged in a two day period of unauthorized absence from 7 to 9 December 1987. For this offense you received extra military instruction. On 26 April 1988, you receive nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence and failing to obey a lawful order. On 3 June 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence. You received nonjudicial punishment again on 25 July 1988, but your naval records do not contain the details on the underlying offense. On 31 October 1988, you  
received a written warning for sleeping on watch and to address certain personal problems. On 7 November 1988 you received nonjudicial punishment for being derelict in the performance of your duties concerning watch standing and for your misbehavior as a sentinel. On 26 January 1989, you received nonjudicial punishment for a period of unauthorized absence. On 27 January 1989, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and your right in connection therewith. You waived your right to an administrative discharge board. On 14 February 1989, your commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that you be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. On 23 February 1989, the separation authority, who made the final decision on your characterization of service, directed your discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 28 February 1989, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your current petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that you were proud to serve your country but you were very young and immature. You stated that while you believe we are accountable for our actions, you also believe we are not defined by our mistakes and that we are better defined by what we do going forward. You explained that you have been a productive member of society during your civilian life, and that upon reflection, you did not appreciate the magnitude of accepting the other than honorable discharge. Finally, you stated that you were diagnosed with borderline personality disorder while on active duty but you were not offered any treatment for it. 

In light of your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board received, and reviewed, the 16 March 2021 AO. The AO reviewed your naval records as well as all of the materials that you submitted, and explained that: 
Petitioner’s in-service records contained a 26 January 1989 psychiatric evaluation in which he was referred for uncooperative and poor work attitude. He was diagnosed with Alcohol and Marijuana Abuse, in remission and Immature Personality Traits. He was recommended for administrative separation if “he did not conform his behavior to military requirements.” He received a substance abuse evaluation on 12 May 1988, but was assessed as “No Serious Alcohol Problem” and recommended for alcohol abuse education classes. There were no records of a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. The remainder of Petitioner’s in-service records did not contain evidence of additional diagnoses of a mental health condition, or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Throughout his military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, as well as his separation physical examination, there were no concerns cited which would have warranted referral to mental health resources.
 
The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” 
 
In review of all of your materials, the Board commended you for your assertion that you have been a productive member of society post-discharge, but it noted you did not provide material to support you assertion. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, in light of the finding of the AO, as well as a review of your overall service record, which included the imposition of nonjudicial punishment on five occasions, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 

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, 
5/11/2021 

3