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 5 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, 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). 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. You originally enlisted in the Navy on 12 August 1992, and your last reenlistment commenced on 24 November 1998. Your pre-enlistment physical and self-reported medical history both noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions or symptoms. On 24 September 2000 you were convicted at a General Court-Martial (GCM) of: (a) conspiracy to commit larceny and to produce and sell false military identification cards, and (b) six separate specifications of larceny involving the theft of items necessary to produce false military identification cards. You received as punishment twenty-four (24) months of confinement, automatic forfeitures of pay, a reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted paygrade (E-1), and a discharge from the Navy with a Dishonorable Discharge (DD). In the interim, your separation physical examination on 26 July 2001 and self-reported medical history both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 27 October 2001 you were placed on appellate leave awaiting your DD. Upon the completion of appellate review in your case, on 20 August 2003 you were discharged from the Navy with a DD and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 12 March 2021. The MD initially observed that you did not provide a description of your psychological symptoms or behavioral changes due to your PTSD, or an account of traumatic incidents leading to your PTSD. The MD noted that you did not provide any in-service or post-discharge clinical evidence of a PTSD diagnosis. The MD also noted that your military records did not contain any evidence of a mental health condition, or psychological/behavioral changes indicating PTSD or any other mental health condition. The MD determined that there was no indication in your service record or personal statement that you were exposed to a primary or secondary trauma. The MD concluded by opining the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD or any other mental health condition on active duty, or that your misconduct was attributed 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 Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) you served your contract under honorable conditions; (b) you tried to get help for PTSD post-service; (c) you have been homeless after getting out of the service; (d) your civilian doctor stated that you have all of the diagnosed PTSD symptoms that you obtained during the Iraqi war; and (e) you are in need of mental health services. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie 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 insufficient evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms. Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from BCNR on 9 March 2020 to specifically provide additional documentary material. The Board also concluded 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. The Board noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. Additionally, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, medical care, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard for mental health conditions, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline clearly merited your receipt of a DD. The Board also noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it might grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of discharge, even one awarded by a court-martial. However, the Board concluded that despite your contentions this is not a case warranting any clemency. You were properly convicted at a GCM of serious misconduct, and the Board did not find any evidence of an error or injustice in this application that warrants upgrading your DD. 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. 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, 5/11/2021 Executive Director