Docket No: 672-20 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 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 9 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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). You enlisted in the Navy on 11 March 1998. Your pre-service enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions or symptoms. Following the completion of initial recruit training, on 2 July 1998 you reported for duty on board the USS . On 30 November 1998 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence that terminated after one day. On 21 July 1999 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated after 315 days on 31 May 2000 with your surrender to military authority. During your absence, you missed ship’s movement on 2 August 1999. On 27 June 2000 you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) for your 315-day UA and missing ship’s movement. You received as punishment twenty-five days of confinement, a reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted paygrade (E-1), and a discharge from the Navy with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). Upon the completion of SPCM appellate review in your case, on 21 June 2001 you were discharged from the Navy with a BCD and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. On 31 March 2010 the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your initial application for relief. As part of the Board review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 12 February 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that your in-service records did not reveal any evidence of a mental health diagnosis, behavioral changes indicating any mental health conditions, or evidence you experienced any primary or secondary trauma. The Ph.D. noted that you did not provide any medical or clinical documentation for review. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence you were either diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, or that your misconduct was attributable to 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 Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to your contentions that: (a) at the time of your UA you were suffering from PTSD; (b) you went UA to care for family members with serious medical conditions; (c) you are not rated for any disabilities and you would like to obtain VA benefits and treatment for your mental health; (d) since your discharge you have led a stable, productive, and successful life; (e) the underlying basis of your separation was procedurally defective at the time of the discharge; (f) the adverse action was unfair at the time given that you had PTSD; (g) the OTH discharge is inequitable now; and (h) clemency was never shown. 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 that there was no convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms. Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from BCNR on 4 February 2020 to specifically provide additional documentary material. The Board also noted that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions. The Board noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. Additionally, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard for mental health conditions, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline clearly merited your receipt of a BCD. The Board also noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it might grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of discharge, even one awarded by a court-martial. However, the Board concluded that despite your contentions this is not a case warranting clemency. You were properly convicted at a SPCM of serious misconduct, and the Board did not find any evidence of an error or injustice in this application that warrants upgrading your BCD. 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. 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