DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8048-20 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 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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 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, including 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 reviewed a 31 May 2021 advisory opinion (AO), a copy of which was provided to you and to which you did not provide a response. You enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty on 27 November 1972. On 5 June 1974, you were granted a drug use exemption, whereby you were warned not to use drugs again. On 6 June 1974, you were provided a written warning that if you engaged in further misconduct, it could lead to a punitive or undesirable discharge. On 6 July 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence. On 9 July 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey a lawful order. You were found to be in possession of illegal drugs, and, on 17 July 1974, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing on the basis of unfitness due to drug usage and for good of the service due to fraudulent enlistment. On 8 August 1974, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with a general characterization of service. On 5 September 1974, the discharge authority directed that you be discharged with a general characterization of service, and on 11 September 1974, you were so discharged. In 1984, you filed an application with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), and on 3 May 1984, the NDRB denied your application. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your current petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that you suffered from PTSD due to command harassment after being assigned to two consecutive mess deck rotations hindering your ability to study for your rate exams. You further contend that because of this harassment and the trauma of an explosion on the ship, you started using marijuana and got caught. In light of your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board received, and reviewed, the 31 May 2021 AO. The AO reviewed your naval records as well as all of the materials that you submitted, and explained as follows: Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. He was medically evaluated on 7/24/74 for his drug exemption, assessed as not drug dependent, and that no rehabilitation was needed. Throughout his military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, there were no concerns cited which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. While Petitioner asserted he suffered from mental health issues, he did not provide any evidence of symptoms or post-service clinical diagnosis to support his claim. The AO concluded that, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” In review of all of your materials, the Board did not find an injustice in your record warranting relief. The Board concurred with the finding of the AO. The Board noted that you had been warned on more than one occasion concerning your misconduct, and you were processed for discharged only after you continued to engage in drug usage and violated your drug exemption agreement. The Board also noted that, despite your misconduct, you received a general, and not an other than honorable, characterization of service, which may have been authorized under the circumstances. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, as well as a review of your overall service record, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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 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, 7/29/2021 Executive Director