DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2038-20 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, 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 20 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 February 1993. On 18 June 1993, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). On 28 June 1983, you were counseled regarding your UA and being absent from your appointed place of duty. Additionally, you were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 2 July 1993, you received NJP for breaking restriction. On 25 October 1993, you were counseled regarding UA, and breaking restriction, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 24 December 1993, you were apprehended by civil authorities for aggravated battery. Your case was turned over to military authorities. On 15 January 1994, you received NJP for assault consummated by a battery and disorderly conduct. On 28 January 1994, you were notified of administrative discharge action due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 7 February 1994, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 10 March 1994, the separation authority directed your discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 21 March 1994, 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 a mental health condition during your service. The AO noted that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a 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 Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to your statement that you have changed, and want your discharge upgraded to better yourself, and to use benefits to help your son. Further, you assert that you were approved for disability, but are handicapped because of your discharge. 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 NJPs, and the fact that you were, warned of the consequences of further misconduct on more than one occasion outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO in that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. 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, 5/27/2021 Executive Director