DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6423-20 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 limitation 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 27 August 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 provider, a copy of which was previously furnished to you. Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit an AO rebuttal, you did not do so. The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy on 19 July 1961. On 17 October 1961 Recruit Training Command, (RTC) recommended that you be separated from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) discharge following your superficial suicide gesture by taking an overdose of medication in an effort to avoid recruit training and force your discharge. RTC noted that a medical evaluation at the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) failed to reveal any serious disturbance or suicidal intent and that you were legally responsible for your actions. RTC also noted that the REU recommended your early separation due to unsuitability. On 17 October 1961 the Commander, Naval Training Center, convened an aptitude board (AB) in your case due to your inability to adjust to service demands. The AB noted that you were referred for an AB by the Naval Hospital because of your indications of a personality deficit. The AB noted that your progress in training was indicative of lack of aptitude for the Navy and your grasp of instruction was poor. The AB also noted that when your efforts to adjust to training proved unsuccessful, you became discouraged and lost all motivation for further achievement. The AB further noted that psychiatric evaluation revealed you to be a quiet, timid, insecure individual who was guarded and noncommittal in your responses. The AB determined that further retention carried a serious threat of psychiatric disability and that your separation was advised. The AB determined that your condition existed prior to entry into the Navy and was not aggravated by the service. The AB concluded by recommending your discharge from the Navy by reason of unsuitability. Ultimately, on 19 October 1961 you were discharged from the Navy for unsuitability with a GEN characterization of service and not recommended for reenlistment. In this regard, you were assigned the correct characterization and reentry recommendation based on your factual situation. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 24 April 2021. The MD initially observed that your in-service records contained evidence of poor adjustment to the military training environment stemming from childhood trauma, which was exacerbated by your exposure to routine training requirements. The MD noted that though you were briefly hospitalized following a suicide gesture, there was no diagnosis made and only a summary of poor adaptation to the military and discharge recommendation for unsuitability for continued training or military service was entered into your service records. The MD noted that throughout your naval training, counselings, and administrative processing to include an AB, there were no additional concerns cited which would have warranted additional referral to mental health resources for further evaluation or treatment. The MD concluded by opining that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from a service-connected mental health condition, or that your in-service poor performance and self-injurious behavior could be attributed to a mental health condition arising from his enlistment. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) that PTSD was not considered at the time of your separation in 1961, (b) before immigrating to the United States you were often exposed to violence and brutality and that you lived with sporadic gunfire, explosions, and death throughout your early childhood, (c) in basic training you had episodes of flashbacks during weapons training and felt anxious and had nightmares leading to nervous exhaustion and depression, (d) when your girlfriend’s mother objected to you seeing her again, it compounded your depression and resulted in a foolish overdose of pills, and (e) if you had proper counseling or time to consider the adverse consequences the discharge would have on your life you would have stayed in the Navy. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded notwithstanding any post-service mental health diagnosis, there was no nexus between any mental health conditions or symptoms and your active duty conduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions were related to the behavior that formed the basis of your unsuitability discharge. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your behavior was not due to a diagnosed mental health condition, but rather your inability to adjust to the unique demands of military service. The Board determined the record reflected that your conduct during initial recruit training indicated you were unfit for further service. The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions. Additionally, the Board noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board declined to summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your conduct clearly merited your receipt of a GEN, and that such characterization was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 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, 9/7/2021 Deputy Director