DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3784-20 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 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, 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 24 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional, a copy of which was provided to you, and to which you did not respond. You enlisted in the Navy on 26 June 1981. You received nonjudicial punishment on 4 May 1982 for failing to go to your appointed place of duty. On 19 August 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment for a period of unauthorized absence of approximately one day. On 13 September 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment for being disrespectful to an officer, offering violence to a commissioned officer by stating, “what if I open your throat to see if there’s any blood,” refusing to consent to a search when returning to your ship, and for two periods of unauthorized absence. On 11 December 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment for a 3.5 hour period of unauthorized absence. On 26 September 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment for a 23 day period of unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement, and failing to obey a lawful order or regulation. On 15 October 1985, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and your rights in connection with same. You waived your right to an administrative board. On 18 October 1985, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 23 October 1985, the separation authority directed that you be separated with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 9 November 1985, you were so discharged. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You provided several documents in support of your petition, including medical records, a personal statement, letter of recognition, and letter of commendation. Your personal statement explained the incident that occurred with the officer when you returned from liberty, which resulted in nonjudicial punishment. You also explained several external factors that were occurring in your life at the time you were on active duty. In light of your inclusion of medical records, the Board received, and reviewed, the 24 March 2021 AO. The AO reviewed your naval records as well as all of the materials that you submitted, and found as follows: 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. Petitioner’s in-service record does reflect poor coping skills, but does not appear to reflect evidence, which would meet the criteria of a mental health condition (i.e., “depression for a day or two”). Stressors in military life are different than those in civilian life and although healthy coping skills are important, the lack thereof does not constitute a mental health condition. The AO concluded, “[b]ased on the available evidence, 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.” In review of all of your materials, the Board did not find an injustice in your record warranting relief. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the AO in finding that there is no indication of a mental health condition such that would mitigate your misconduct. In addition, the Board did not find that there was evidence of post-service or other materials sufficient to grant relief based on clemency factors. 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, 5/27/2021 3