Docket No: 3998-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear . This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 16 April 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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). You enlisted in the Navy on 6 June 2016. Your pre-enlistment physical and self-reported medical history both noted no neurologic or psychiatric abnormalities, conditions, and/or symptoms. On your fifth day of initial recruit training (10 June 2016) you were evaluated by the Mental Health Department at the Federal Health Care Center in . You were diagnosed with an unspecified depressive disorder that existed prior to service (EPTS). The Medical Officer (MO) noted that you had no other condition constituting a disability that was incurred in or aggravated by military service, either during the current period of service or during any prior period of service. The MO noted the following impairments: hopelessness, helplessness and suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms since childhood with past suicidal ideation and self-injurious behavior. The MO determined that your condition was sufficiently severe to significantly impair your ability to function effectively in a military environment and recommended your administrative separation. On 17 June 2016 your command provided you notice that you were being administratively processed for an administrative discharge from the Navy by reason of defective induction and enlistment into naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a physical or mental condition EPTS. You elected in writing to waive your rights to consult with counsel, submit a written statement to the separation authority, and to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of your discharge. You also expressly stated in writing that you did not object to your discharge. Ultimately, on 8 July 2016 you were discharged from the Navy with an uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS) for erroneous enlistment given your length of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. In this regard, you were assigned the correct characterization, narrative reason for separation, and reentry code based on your factual situation. As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 25 March 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that you provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DVAMC) in noting your treatment since June 2020 for major depressive disorder, severe, without psychotic features, as well as PTSD, and that the DVAMC practitioner indicated that your trauma occurred during boot camp. The Ph.D. noted that you did not provide any civilian or military medical records for review. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that your post-service diagnoses gave credibility to your contention that you experienced a trauma during boot camp leading to your in-service diagnosis. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) your in-service diagnosed mental health condition did not exist prior to service and never required treatment or diagnosis, (b) no erroneous entry was committed, and (c) all of your mental health diagnoses including anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and your PTSD diagnosis was made post-service and did not exist prior to service. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded the underlying basis for your discharge was clearly an erroneous enlistment for a disqualifying medical issue EPTS and not due to any mental health conditions caused by service-connected trauma. The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presumed that your 10 June 2016 mental health diagnosis was accurate. The MO clearly formed his mental health diagnosis based on information personally provided by you during your evaluation, which included depressive symptoms since childhood with past suicidal ideation and self-injurious behavior. The Board unequivocally determined that you had a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to remain truthful on your enlistment paperwork. Had you properly and fully disclosed your entire medical and mental health history on your enlistment application you would have been disqualified from enlisting. The Board noted that separations initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active duty will be described as ELS except when an honorable discharge is approved by the Secretary of the Navy in cases involving unusual circumstances not applicable in your case. Moreover, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your factual situation clearly merited your receipt of an ELS for erroneous enlistment, and that such characterization and narrative reason for separation were proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 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,