DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4509-20 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 7 June 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 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 2 April 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20 September 1978. During the period from 23 July 1979 to 11 September 1980, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four separate occasions. The offenses included three instances of unauthorized absence (UA), two specifications of failing to go to your appointed place of duty, possession of a falsified official document, and destruction of government property. On 6 November 1980, you were counseled concerning your frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Additionally, you were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. During the period from 14 November 1980 to 12 May 1981, you received three additional NJPs for being away from your appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and two periods of UA. You were then notified of administrative discharge action due to misconduct. After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 22 May 1981, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that you be separated from the Navy due to your frequent involvement with military authorities. On 12 June 1981, the separation authority directed that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. On 18 June 1981, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH 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 PTSD during your service. The AO noted that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish that you 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 assertion that your OTH discharge is insufficient given your undiagnosed mental illnesses at the time. You further assert that there was no specific incident highlighted to demonstrate the severity warranting an OTH discharge, and your misconduct could be attributed to diagnoses of depression and bipolar disorder, exacerbated by PTSD from your time at sea that was not properly addressed. Further, you contend that reconsidering your reported behavior and undiagnosed mental health disorders, should offer clear reasoning for your discharge to be upgraded to permit access to Veteran’s benefits. The Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your seven NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequence of further misconduct after your fourth NJP, outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO in that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service or 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, 6/15/2021 Executive Director