Docket No: 6073-20 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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 19 April 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 26 November 1990. On 15 August 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 21 days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 14 November 1992, you began another period of UA, and you missed ship’s movement during the period. On 3 January 1993, you were apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control. On 19 January 1993, you received NJP for 50 days of UA, missing ship’s movement, and being out of uniform. On 20 January 1993, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious military offense. After being afforded you procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 22 January 1993, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 12 February 1993, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that you receive an OTH discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 26 February 1993, 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 available objective evidence failed to establish 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 assertions that you suffered from mental and emotional incapability because of marital problems, you were exposed to hostile fire during the Gulf War aboard your ship, and you suffered from command stress dealing with your leading Petty Officer. You stated you went into a UA status to find your wife and kids after they left, and that during your incarceration, you were diagnosed with PTSD, Compulsive Obsessive Personality, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJPs for periods of UA and missing ship’s movement outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the conclusion of the AO. 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, 6/24/2021 Executive Director