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

Docket No: 2151-20 
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 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 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (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 an 11 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. 
On 10 September 1979 you enlisted in the Navy. On 3 September 1980, you signed a written counseling/warning concerning your use of illegal drugs. On 4 September 1980, you received nonjudicial punishment due to your use of methamphetamines and use of marijuana. On 3 March 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to fire watch and for disobeying an order. On 26 August 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from morning muster. On 3 February 1982, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing due to substandard performance and for being a burden to your command. On 12 February 1982, you were discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In 1996, you filed an application with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for review of your characterization of service. You contended that your general discharge was too severe for only having two nonjudicial punishments on your record, and since the time of your discharge you attended truck driving school. On 8 May 1996, the NDRB denied your application. 

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 current petition that you have been dealing with mental and physical issues since the time of your discharge, and you submitted materials from the Department of Veterans Affairs in support of your petition. In light of your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board received, and reviewed, the 11 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 did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Throughout his disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Although he contends he was diagnosed post-discharge with PTSD, he did not provide a description of his symptoms/trauma, civilian diagnoses, or proof of service connection. The lack of diagnosis/information on how he met criteria for PTSD made it difficult to establish a timeline of onset and development of mental health symptoms or identify a nexus with his inservice misconduct.
 
The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition.” Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, and in accordance with the conclusion of the AO, 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, 
5/4/2021 

3