DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5113-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: 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. 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 14 July 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). The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 18 April 2021, which was previously provided to you. You entered a period of active duty in the Navy on 19 October 2000. On 21 May 2002 you received a counseling entry and retention warning for being in unauthorized absence (UA) status before and during working hours, unsatisfactory military appearance, and failure to obey lawful orders and directions. On 12 August 2002 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for six specifications of UA and two specifications of missing ship’s movement in violation of Articles 86 and 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You entered another period of UA on 3 December 2002 and received NJP for violation of Article 86, UCMJ on 28 March 2003. The same day you were notified of administrative separation processing and chose to waive your procedural right to consult with counsel; nor did you request an administrative discharge board. You were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service on 2 April 2003. You contend your behavior while in-service was a result of a mental health condition that you had at the time of discharge. You further contend you underwent two psychiatric evaluations with different Navy psychiatrists, both providers concluded you had Borderline Personality Disorder and recommended medical discharge. During the evaluations you state you confessed to substance-seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate. You state you disclosed this information because you wanted to be well and fit in order to do your job and serve your country. You state that following discharge you were later hospitalized in a facility in and diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder. You also state that you are now successfully treated, no longer receive disability benefits, are gainfully employed, and continue to overcome the obstacles of mental health. 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 contentions noted above and desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also relied on the AO in making its determination. The AO noted that the dearth of information made available did not provide enough markers to establish an onset and development of mental health symptoms or identify a nexus with your in-service misconduct. Accordingly, the AO concluded 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. Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJPs and administrative separation processing, 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, 7/19/2021 Executive Director