DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7766-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was 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 19 July 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 the 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by a qualified mental health professional along with your rebuttal. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 25 June 1984. On 12 July 1985, you were counseled concerning being absent from your appointed place of duty. Additionally, you were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 16 August 1985, you received NJP for drunk and disorderly conduct, willful disobedience of a lawful order, and sleeping in a bunk not assigned to you. On 7 November 1985, you received NJP for two specifications of unlawfully striking another crewmember. On 4 April 1986, you completed a Level III alcohol treatment program. On 23 August 1986, you received NJP for dereliction of duty by negligently failing to remain awake while standing watch. On 28 August 1986, a Drug and Alcohol Evaluation found you psychologically dependent on alcohol and recommended administrative discharge action. On 29 August 1986, a Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report stated that you were afforded inpatient treatment for alcohol abuse, and that your recent conduct and attitude indicated that you had no potential for further useful service. On the same day, you were notified of administrative separation processing by reason of a pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 1 September 1986, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct, but that you also receive Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in-patient treatment after your separation from the Navy. On 4 September 1986, the separation authority directed your discharge with an OTH characterization of service due to a pattern of misconduct, and offered in-patient alcohol treatment via a DVA hospital. On 26 September 1986, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an advisory opinion (AO) regarding your assertion that you were suffering from PTSD during your service. The AO noted that although you provided documentation of a post-discharge diagnosis, the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you 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. In your rebuttal to the AO, you provided a timeframe of the incidents that took place during your time in the Navy. The Board’s mental health reviewed the rebuttal, and concluded that there is sufficient evidence that you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during your military service and that your misconduct may be mitigated by your 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 your assertions that undiagnosed PTSD was a contributing cause of violations of military orders that resulted in your OTH discharge. You further assert that your undiagnosed condition of insomnia contributed to your failing to remain awake while on watch, and your undiagnosed Anxiety Disorder contributed to you being overly cautious, hyper-vigilant, and somewhat paranoid. In addition, you allege racial tension, and state that you used alcohol as a coping mechanism to detach from witnessing the death of two Sailors. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct prior to your first NJP outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board did not concur with the conclusion of the second AO, and did not believe that your misconduct could be mitigated by your mental health condition. 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, 8/2/2021 Executive Director