DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6900-20 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 4 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, 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 14 November 1984. Your pre-enlistment physical examination on 29 June 1984 and medical history and noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. You admitted On 28 February 1986 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for three specifications of the wrongful use, introduction, and possession of marijuana on board your ship. You did not appeal your NJP. On 7 March 1986 you received a “Page 13” counseling warning (Page 13) where you acknowledged receiving an adverse performance evaluation containing derogatory comments. The Page 13 expressly stated: FR [P] is a mediocre performer. He has exhibited substandard performance throughout his tour on board . He is lacking in individual initiative and must be constantly supervised when performing even the most routine tasks. His uniform appearance, grooming standards, personal hygiene are seriously deficient. FR [P]’s use, possession and introduction of marijuana on board the , in the workspace during the workday, endangered his safety and that of his shipmates…He is not recommended for retention or advancement. On 7 March 1986 you also were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. You elected your rights to consult with counsel and to present your case to an administrative separation board (Adsep Board). On 9 April 1986 an Adsep Board convened in your case. At the Adsep Board you were represented by a Navy Judge Advocate. Following the presentation of evidence and witness testimony, the Adsep Board members unanimously determined that you committed the misconduct as charged. Subsequent to the misconduct finding, the Adsep Board members recommended that you be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service. In the interim, on 23 May 1986 you received NJP for dereliction of duty. Ultimately, on 20 June 1986 you were discharged from the Navy for misconduct due to drug abuse with an OTH characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 13 April 2021. The Ph.D. initially noted your in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes indicating a mental health condition. The Ph.D. noted that throughout your disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. The Ph.D. determined that there was no evidence presented indicating your experience of life stressors was extraordinary or unique, or that you met the diagnostic criteria for a mental health condition on active duty. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the evidence failed to establish you were either diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, 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 Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) you developed a mental health condition on active duty, (b) your depression started after you joined the Navy, (c) you take full responsibility for your actions in the Navy and regret that you made a poor choice while on active duty, and (d) aside from your one marijuana use and positive test you had no other offenses big or small. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, 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 condition was 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 conditions or symptoms. 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. Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average was 2.70 in conduct. Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious drug-related misconduct which justified your OTH characterization of discharge. The Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious as to deserve a discharge upgrade and determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Sailor. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 serious drug-related misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH. 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, 6/11/2021 Deputy Director