Docket No: 8122-20 

Dear Petitioner: 
 
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 30 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 26 May 2021, which was previously provided to you.   
 
The Board determined your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You reenlisted in the Navy on 29 February 2000.  On 31 March 2001, you were arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct and simple assault and subsequently received counseling and a retention warning on 20 April 2001.  On 10 October 2002, you completed intensive outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse.  On 13 January 2003, you received nonjudicial punishment for two instances of being drunk and disorderly.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  After you waived your procedural rights, your Commanding Officer, the discharge authority, directed discharge with a general, under honorable conditions, characterization of service due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  On 16 May 2003, 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 26 May 2021.  The AO stated your in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes that may have indicated a mental health condition.  Specifically, the AO stated that throughout your military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, retention warnings, alcohol rehabilitation treatment, and administrative processing there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources other than your diagnosed substance abuse.  Although you contend you have been diagnosed post-service with PTSD, the AO noted you did not present evidence of any symptoms, traumatic events, or linkage to your in-service misconduct.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the objective evidence does not establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition other than a substance abuse disorder, 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 AO was provided to you on 27 May 2021, and you were given 30 days in which to respond.  When you did not respond after 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention your record is unjust because you have been diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol dependency.  The Board noted the documentation you provided was an undated excerpt of a correspondence without identifying information stating your contended diagnosis.  The Board also noted you did not did not submit a statement, advocacy letters, or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes.  Unfortunately, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service.  The Board, relying on the AO and applying liberal consideration, concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting clemency in the form of an upgraded characterization of service, a changed reentry code, or restoration of your rank.   
 
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 your contentions discussed above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  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,  
                                                                      7/14/2021
      								      Executive Director