DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2408-20 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 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (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 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 a 16 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. You enlisted in the Navy on 8 December 1975. On 29 April 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment for four periods of unauthorized absence. On 23 June 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from restricted musters 48 times and for violating uniform regulations. On or about 18 July 1976, you commenced a period of unauthorized absence and you remained absent until you were apprehended by authorities in , . After you returned to naval control, you submitted a request for undesirable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial. Your request was approved, and you were discharged on 22 October 1976 with an other than honorable characterization of service. In 1986, you submitted an application for review of your discharge to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). In your application, you contended that you were not counseled by your leadership, that your evaluation marks were pretty good, your records of promotion show that you were a good performer, that your ability to serve was impaired by your youth and immaturity, that your ability to serve was impaired by your deprived background; and that the punishment you received was too severe compared to today’s standards. The NDRB denied your application on 19 November 1986. 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 petition that you were subjected to extenuating circumstances based on undiagnosed behavioral health issues, and that you are currently under psychiatric care. In light of your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board received, and reviewed, the 16 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 military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, as well as his separation physical examination, there were no concerns cited which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Petitioner did not provide any clinical evidence of a post-discharge mental health condition. The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with, or suffered from, a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” Given the totality of the circumstances, in light of the finding of the AO, as well as a review of your overall service record, 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, 6/11/2021 Deputy Director