Docket No: 1683-20 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. The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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 19 April 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 2 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 4 June 1979. On 13 September 1979, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two instances of failing to go to your appointed place of duty. On 15 February 1980, you received NJP for 18 days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 23 February 1980, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two specifications of UA, and assault. During the period from 6 February to 1 July 1981, you received three additional NJPs for four specifications of disobeying a lawful order, wrongful communication towards a petty officer, two periods of UA, and disrespect. On 8 July 1981, you were notified of administrative discharge action due to creating an administrative burden to your command and minor disciplinary infractions. You did not object to the discharge. On 10 July 1981, you received your sixth NJP for disobeying a lawful order by missing three restricted musters. Your case was subsequently forwarded to the separation authority and on 21 July 1981, and you were discharged from the Navy with a general 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 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during your service. The AO noted that although you carry a post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD, the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD or suffered from PTSD or other major mental health condition 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 when you joined the Navy, you were not fully emotionally mature, and growing up as an “at-risk” youth, your home and community life was very dysfunctional, hindering your social and emotional growth. You further assert that joined the Navy to overcome your situation; however, you struggled throughout your time on active duty with mental health challenges that went undiagnosed. Further, you state you are designated as a “service-connected disabled veteran” for various physical and mental injuries, to include PTSD. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. At the time of our separation from the Navy, your conduct average was 2.26. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. As such, your conduct average was insufficient to warrant an honorable discharge. The Board further determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your six NJPs and SCM conviction outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO. 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, 4/27/2021 Executive Director