DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5648-20 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. 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 23 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 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 13 April 2021, which was previously provided to you. You entered a period of active duty in the Navy on 28 March 2002. You then entered into an unauthorized absence (UA) status from 5 August 2002 to 20 February 2003. On 14 April 2003 you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) for UA in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice. On 13 May 2003 you were notified of administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The same day you waived your procedural right to consult with counsel and to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. You were discharged on 12 June 2003 with an other than honorable characterization of service. You contend your separation was under stressful circumstances involving the death of your mother. You further state you are currently correcting old issues, your son is joining the service, and you are ashamed of not having an honorable discharge. 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 your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also relied on the AO in making its determination. The AO noted that the lack of information made available did not provide enough markers to establish an onset and development of mental health symptoms or identify a nexus between a mental health condition and your 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 SCM, 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, 7/9/2021 Executive Director