Docket No: 5212-20 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. 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 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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, including 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 requested and reviewed a 2 April 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional. You enlisted in the Navy on 9 March 1984. From 4 April 1985 to 3 July 1986, you received written performance and conduct counseling from your squadron leadership on at least ten different occasions. On 26 June 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment for a one day period of unauthorized absence. On 6 July 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment for a short period of unauthorized absence and for disobeying a lawful order by wearing an earring. On 5 September 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying orders and for another short period of unauthorized absence. On 2 December 1986, you disobeyed a lawful order by possessing and discharging a shotgun on Finally, on 27 October 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying an order to remain at your post and for being absent from your place of duty. On 3 December 1986, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing and your rights in connection therewith. You waived your right to an administrative discharge board. On 8 January 1987, your commanding officer recommended your discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 27 January 1987, the discharge authority directed your discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 4 February 1987 you were so discharged. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your current petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. In your petition, you explained that during your time in service, you made a bad and regretful mistake, that you were under a lot of mental pressure from your family, finances, and your military unit, and that you wrongfully discharged a weapon on base but not in an area where anyone or property could be hurt or destroyed. You contend that you previously attempted to get help and talked to counselors but you did not get the help that you thought you needed, and that when you reached out to your chain of command, you were told you could not leave your unit, but that you could be kicked out of the Navy. You contend that pressured you to commit an act that should not have been your actions. You also state that it has been 33 years since you left the Navy and you plead with the Board to upgrade your status, and you have provided letters of support. In light of your assertions that related to mental health concerns, the Board sought, and reviewed, the 2 April 2021 AO, which is considered favorable. According to the AO, your service records did contain evidence of psychological or behavioral changes that resulted in your referral to individual counseling. The AO explained that if you were “engaging in treatment, it is possible relief of symptoms was taking longer to achieve than [you] anticipated and thus resorted back to [your] maladaptive coping skills and immature way of interacting with others.” The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient direct evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health condition.” In review of all of your materials, the Board determined that the relief you seek is not warranted. The Board acknowledged, but disagreed with the AO’s finding that your misconduct may be mitigated by your mental health condition. After careful review, the Board could not find a nexus between your misconduct and your mental health condition. The Board also considered your explanation for your behavior as well as the supporting materials you provided pursuant to the Wilkie Memo relating to evaluating requests for discharge upgrades based upon clemency. However, the Board found that the information you provided was not sufficient to warrant relief. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, as well as a review of your overall service record, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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, 5/19/2021 Executive Director