Docket No. 3070-20 
Ref: Signature Date 



This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of theArmy, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.     

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your narrative reason for separation should be changed to disability and your characterization of service upgraded to Honorable.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In examining your record, the Board noted that you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder on 8 August 2005; a diagnosis that was later confirmed on 9 September 2005 after a 30-day evaluation period.  Adjustment disorders were defined as conditions not considered a disability under Department of Defense disability regulations.  Therefore, the Board concluded you were appropriately processed for administrative separation for Convenience of the government due to a Physical or Mental Condition.  Additionally, since your adjustment disorder was medically determined to be the primary cause of your military occupational impairment, the Board determined your narrative reason for separation remains supported by the evidence.  While the Board considered your post-discharge diagnoses for depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and schizoaffective disorder, they concluded these diagnoses occurred well after your discharge from the Navy.  Therefore, the Board lacked evidence that these conditions were symptomatic at the time of your discharge or unfitting for continued naval service.  

Regarding your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service, the Board concluded insufficient evidence exists to support relief.  The Board applied liberal consideration to the facts of your case but determined that you were appropriately assigned a General characterization of service based on your relatively brief period of active duty service and your non-judicial punishment for assault that formed the basis for your 2.0 trait average.  In making their finding, the Board found no evidence that a nexus exists between your misconduct and post-discharge mental health conditions to merit mitigating your misconduct or 2.0 trait average. Therefore, they found your assigned characterization of service appropriate since you did not qualify for an Honorable characterization of service based on your 2.0 trait average. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.  

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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.