Docket No: 0629-20
Ref: Signature Date                         
            
 
 
Dear .  
 
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 7 April 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 February 2021.      
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 13 April 2000.  On 28 October 2000, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for assault consummated by battery.  On 6 August 2001, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, wrongful use of marijuana, drunk and disorderly conduct and three specifications of unauthorized absence. 
 
Subsequently, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the naval service because of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, pattern of misconduct and drug abuse.  You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  Your commanding officer (CO) then forwarded your administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending that you be administratively discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The separation authority approved the CO’s recommendation and directed your OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due drug abuse.  On 31 August 2001, you were so discharged.  
 
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 18 February 2021.  As reflected in the AO, the mental health professional concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contentions that (1) you were “jumped and beat up” while you were in the military and it still has a psychological effect on you to this day; (2) those events drew you into nightmares that caused you to drink and do drugs and you have not recovered; and (3) you believe strongly that the Navy should give you a second chance and give you an upgrade of your discharge; it is only right. 
 
Unfortunately, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your service was appropriately characterized as other than honorable. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. 
 
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 as previously discussed, and your desire to upgrade your discharge. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your misconduct as evidenced by an NJP and SCM conviction outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined 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,