Docket No: 3919-20 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. 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. 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 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, 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 25 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 March 1987. On 17 March 1987, you were briefed on the Navy’s policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse. On 2 October 1989, you reenlisted in Navy. On 16 May 1991, after testing positive for cocaine, you were able to produce your fiancé’s dental record, that reinforced your statement that Tylenol III was issued to her on 21 March 1991 via the Dental Clinic, and that you believed you mistakenly ingested the tablets. As a result, a medical depart representative opined that you had made a careless mistake, which unfortunately may have had a devastating impact on your military career, and you had never had any criminal convictions or violation civilian or military of this nature. Notwithstanding, on 20 May 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of cocaine. On 30 May 1991, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 22 October 1991, the ADB found you had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, and recommended your separation from the Navy with a general characterization of service. On 5 November 1991, your case was forwarded to the separation authority concurring with the ADB’s findings and recommendations. On 18 November 1991, you elected not to receive 30-day inpatient treatment for drug and alcohol dependency by the Department of Veterans Affairs. On 19 November 1991 you were discharged from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from Post- PTSD during your service. The AO noted that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish that you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a 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 Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to your assertions that you suffered from an undiagnosed and untreated mental health condition while in the service which led to your discharge; your PTSD led to a severe alcohol problem which was never treated by the Navy. You further assert that you were then, and still are, a black-out alcoholic who does not remember events during periods of heavy alcohol use; and under these circumstances, you were accused of drug use, even though you did not enter the service on a drug waiver, and you were not a heavy drinker until after the service incident that was the cause of your PTSD. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP for wrongful drug use, outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with AO in that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that 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, 5/27/2021 Executive Director