DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6935-20 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 23 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, 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 14 April 2021, which was previously provided to you. You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 November 1985 after serving on active duty from 13 July 1982 to 12 November 1985. From 12 December 1986 to 22 December 1986, you were psychiatrically hospitalized due to your self-reported decreased work performance, diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, and after a finding of fit and suitable, returned to full duty. On 3 June 1987, in your role as a recruiter, you were counseled regarding forming a personal or social relationship with any prospect, applicant, delayed entry program person or high school student. On 5 October 1987, you received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey an order. On 21 November 1989, while being interviewed by Naval Investigative Service, you voluntarily confessed to being a child molester and substance abuser both prior to entry and while in-service. You further confessed that your last known incident of child molestation occurred in 1986 while assigned to recruiting duty. In a 20 December 1989 Report of Medical Board addendum, it was noted you had been diagnosed with schizophreniform disorder, alcohol dependence, personality disorder, tardive dyskinesia, and depressive disorder. On 26 September 1990, after a determination was made that you were a child sexual offender, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your Commanding Officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct reflecting sexual perversion, drug abuse, and fraudulent enlistment. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. On 11 December 1990, you were discharged. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 14 April 2021. Based on the available evidence, the AO stated there is sufficient direct evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during your military service. However, the AO further states that your mental health condition appears to have manifested after your misconduct and therefore your misconduct would not be mitigated by your mental health condition. The AO was provided to you on 14 April 2021, and you were given 30 days to respond. When you did not respond within the 30 days, the case was submitted to the Board for review. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were discharged for mental health conditions. The Board, noting you contend you did not have “this condition” until your second enlistment, concurred with the AO and determined your serious misconduct, which included sexual perversion prior to service and while on recruiting duty, should not be mitigated by the subsequently diagnosed mental health condition. The Board, applying liberal consideration, did not find 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contention your mental health condition is “directly related to [your] character of service.” Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that 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, 6/29/2021 Executive Director