Dear ,  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.      
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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.  Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in BCNR letter SH Docket No: 9435-17/6367-15/7901-13 of 11 January 2018; an opinion provided to you previously as part of your previous application to this Board.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a discharge upgrade to General under Honorable conditions or a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability.  You assert that you suffered from a mental illness that was not properly treated.  You also allege wrongdoing by your chain of command regarding your treatment and sharing of your medical information.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in your case. 
 
First, the Board determined that you were ineligible for disability processing based on your misconduct that resulted in your administrative separation for pattern of misconduct.  Disability regulations directed misconduct related administrative separation processing to supersede disability processing.  So even if you were unfit for continued naval service due to a qualifying disability condition, the Board concluded you were appropriately discharged for your misconduct since it qualified for an Other than Honorable characterization of service.
   
Second, the Board reconsidered whether an upgrade to your characterization of service was merited based on your Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis.  After considering the evidence using liberal consideration, the Board determined the preponderance of the does not support a change to your characterization of service.  Despite a 21 February 2020 medical opinion that states your alcohol abuse was a method of coping with a traumatic event that occurred in the Navy, the Board concluded that your misconduct was, more likely than not, attributable to your pervasive alcohol abuse and dependence vice PTSD.  As pointed out in the advisory opinion, you entered the Navy with a long history of PTSD and alcohol abuse that led to alcohol related misconduct within three months of entering the Navy.  Further, you continued your alcohol related misconduct despite receiving alcohol rehabilitation treatment from the Navy.  This led the Board to conclude that your misconduct was due to your alcohol abuse rather than your PTSD.  While your PTSD may have contributed to your alcohol abuse, the Board ultimately concluded it was your alcohol abuse that led you to commit misconduct and not your PTSD.  Since your alcohol abuse was determined to be the cause of your misconduct, the Board concluded, despite applying liberal consideration, your mental health diagnosis was insufficient mitigation evidence to support an upgrade of your characterization of service.   Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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.  
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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,