DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7251-20 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 16 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 Memoand the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, The Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider. 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 18 July 1978. During the period from 8 January to 4 June 1979, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for being UA. At an unidentified time, you submitted a written request for discharge for a good of the service (GOS) due to being in an UA status from 16 October 1980 to 18 May 1981 totaling 212 days. Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue you a GOS discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 1 July 1981, you were so discharged. An Advisory Opinion (AO) was provided to the Board regarding your assertion that you were suffering from a Mental Health Condition (MHC). The AO stated in part that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. The AO concluded by opining that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, 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 Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, the AO; your desire to upgrade your discharge; your Humanitarian Medal award; and your advancement from Seaman Recruit to Fireman Apprentice during your deployment. The Board further noted your contentions that while recovering from surgery, you found it overwhelming and untenable to return to ship duty at sea, and you decided to go into a UA status because you began a relationship with a woman that became pregnant and the thought of leaving her impacted your thought process. Finally, the Board noted your assertion that since discharge, you have become a law-abiding citizen, have been employed as a driver for the past 35 years, and you have served as your company’s local 120 Union Steward, supporting your fellow employees. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board concurred with the AO and also found no nexus between a MHC and your misconduct. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found that the seriousness of your misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJPs and request for a GOS discharge, 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, 6/23/2021 Executive Director