Docket No:  4460-20 
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 via video or telephonic, 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 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 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, 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 and began a period of active duty on 26 April 91.  On 18 February 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the use of provoking speech or gestures.  You were counseled and warned that further deficiencies in your performance, and or misconduct, could result in administrative discharge action.  On 13 April 1994, you received a medical consultation due to being angry, frustrated, problems adjusting to custody issues, and not being able to deal adequately with parenting skills.  On 20 June 1994, you received NJP for assault consummated by a battery, by unlawfully striking another Sailor on the back with your foot.  You were award 60 days restriction, a forfeiture of pay, and a reduction to paygrade E-2.  On 30 June 1994, you appealed your NJP on the grounds that the punishment was disproportionate for the offense committed.  You stated that you were under tremendous stress being a single parent, that due to deployment you had to send your son to your mother’s house, you were dealing with a false allegation of serious misconduct, you had financial problems, and your hardship discharge request had just been rejected.  On 1 July 1994, your NJP appeal was forwarded to convening authority with the recommendation that your request be disapproved.  On 7 July 1994, the convening authority denied your NJP appeal.  In the interim, on 28 June 1994, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  You elected to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 8 August 1994, the ADB found you had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and recommended your separation with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  However, on 15 August 1994, your commanding officer forwarded your case to the separation authority recommending that you receive an other than honorable discharge.  On 9 September 1994, the separation authority directed that you receive a general (under honorable conditions) due to commission of a serious offense.  On 23 September 1994, 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 a mental health condition during your service.  The AO noted that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from Schizophrenia or other major mental health condition at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition.   
 
On 2 April 2021, you submitted a rebuttal to the AO and provided additional documentation.  On 7 April 2021, your rebuttal reviewed.  However, according to the Board’s mental health professional, there was no new or material evidence presented that would require a revision of the original AO.  The medical opinion remained that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from Schizophrenia or other major 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 statement that there was unfair treatment in your release from active duty.  At that time, you had just gained custody of your son and had issues that could not be resolved while in the military service.  You assert that you requested a hardship discharge, but could not get any assistance from your commanding officer for reasons you cannot provide.  Your further assert that there was another issue you were dealing with when you had your child, and you started to develop Schizophrenia, that may have clouded your judgement when you choose to strike another Sailor.  Further, that you feel that up until your incident, you performed your duties with evaluations that recommended you for promotion; and the punishment you received was not fair.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct, outweighed these mitigating factors.  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