DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6127-20 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 limitation 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 14 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, 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 reviewed an 18 April 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional, a copy of which you were provided and to which you did not provide a response. You enlisted in the Navy on 4 September 1981. On 24 June 1982, you received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from your appointed place of duty and use of the drug PCP. On 27 January 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment for three periods of unauthorized absence and for missing ship’s movement. On 27 January 1983, you were counseled and you were provided a written warning concerning all of your prior offenses. On 10 February 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order and for indecent assault. On 19 May 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment for being disrespectful in your language, violating two orders, communicating a threat, and for being drunk and disorderly. On 19 May 1983, you were also notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing and your rights in connection therewith. You elected your right to have an administrative board. The administrative board was held and it determined that you committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, that you should be discharged from the Navy, and that your characterization of service should be under other than honorable conditions. The board also recommended that your discharge be suspended for one year so that you can receive alcohol treatment. Your commanding officer concurred with the board and your package was forwarded to the separation authority. On 22 September 1983, the separation authority directed that you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 23 September 1983, you were so discharged. In 1984, you filed an application for review of your discharge with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). You contended that your discharge was inequitable because the punishment was too harsh and you did not use PCP. You also stated that your discharge was inequitable because you did not receive alcohol treatment. On 7 March 1985 the NDRB denied your application. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that at the time of your discharge, you were informed your characterization of service would be upgraded after six years. You further contend that you recently were diagnosed with PTSD as a result of your military service and due to your characterization of service, you are unable to get the help that you need from the Department of Veterans Affairs. You explained that, as a result of a tragic event that occurred while you were in boot camp, you began self-medicating with alcohol, which led to your discharge, and when you left the Navy your records indicated you needed treatment for alcoholism. In light of your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board received, and reviewed, the 18 April 2021 AO. The AO reviewed your naval records as well as all of the materials that you submitted, and explained as follows: Petitioner’s in-service records contained evidence of Alcohol Use Disorder. Clinical records included a 19 December 1981 emergency department records of “Alcohol Intoxication,” February 1982 Clinic substance abuse assessment as “not alcohol dependent” (with recommendation for Level I NASAP referral), and 21 May 1983 sick call record of substance abuse evaluation with assessment of “Alcohol Abuse, Not Dependent” with recommendation for Level I Treatment and Antabuse initiation. There was no other diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated other mental health conditions. Throughout his disciplinary actions, counselings, release from active duty physical examination, and administrative processing, there were no concerns identified which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Although Petitioner provided evidence of a post-discharge diagnosis of Acquired Psychiatric Disorder, there was no clinical history provided that indicated his misconduct was the result of a mental health condition during military service. Specifically, the lack of information on the onset and development of mental health symptoms made it difficult to identify a nexus with his in-service misconduct. The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition (other than substance abuse) at the time of his military service or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition.” In review of all of your materials, the Board did not find an injustice in your record warranting relief. The Board concurred with the finding of the AO and it did not find a nexus between your asserted mental health condition such that it would mitigate the misconduct you engaged in while on active duty. The Board also noted that there is no law or regulation that provides for an automatic upgrade of a characterization of service based solely on the passage of time. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, as well as a review of your overall service record, which included the imposition of nonjudicial punishment on four occasions for serious offenses, 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, 6/21/2021 Executive Director