Docket No: 1616-20 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 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 24 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, to include the Kurta 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 12 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 15 June 1989. During the period from 27 April 1990 to 26 September 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on five separate occasions. The offenses included, three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling three days, larceny, disrespect to a petty officer, and being absent from your appointed place of duty. Additionally, you were counseled concerning your frequent UA periods, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 2 October 1991, you were notified of administrative discharge action due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to submit a statement on your behalf. On 11 October 1991, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 17 October 1991, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 25 October 1991, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from PTSD during your service. The AO noted that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, or suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other major mental health conditions. The Board 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 statement that there was an abuse of rank, you were ordered to get steel wool and scratch the wax from the edges of the deck while on your hands and knees, that you refused, and were taken to captain’s mast. You assert that the incident was a psychological trigger for you, and the intimidating and demanding demeanor put you in a place of fear and anger. You further assert that you are a survivor of physical, mental, and verbal abuse by your mother, received intense PTSD counseling from your religious leader, pastor, and counselor at a time when PTSD was not being diagnosed, became a widower, and your desire to upgrade your discharge is to properly bury your wife and receive veteran’s benefits. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your five NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct after your second NJP, outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with AO’s that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, or suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other major mental health conditions. 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, 5/28/2021 Executive Director