Docket No:  4050-20 
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.     
  
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 the 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 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 29 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. 
   
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 8 December 1998.  On 31 March and 12 May 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling 18 days, and breaking restriction.  Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 23 June 2000, you were notified of administrative discharge action due to a pattern of misconduct.  After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected not to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 29 June 2000, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct.  On 14 July 2000, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 20 July 2000, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. 
  
Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. 
 
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 was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during your service.  The AO noted that your misconduct occurred after the traumatic events comprising UA, breaking restriction as maladaptive coping of avoidance of stressors and triggers for PTSD symptoms. The objective evidence provided lends credence to your contention of mitigation due to your diagnosed PTSD. 
 
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 statements that: (a) your division chief had it out for you, you did your best to avoid her, and even transferred to another division; (b) you were singled out daily, which exacerbated your PTSD symptoms and resulted in your UA; (c) your commanding officer offered you a general discharge, but it was changed to OTH with a RE-4 reentry code; and (d) you realize that it was wrong to leave your post without permission, and you believe this proves you were not making good decisions due to 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 two NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Additionally, although the AO stated that your misconduct occurred after the traumatic events comprising UA/breaking restriction as maladaptive coping of avoidance of stressors and triggers for PTSD symptoms, and that the objective evidence provided lends credence to your contention of mitigation due to your diagnosed PTSD, the Board required additional details/evidence surrounding your traumatic event and hospitalization records.  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, 
                                                                            
5/18/2021
Executive Director