Docket No: 0817-20            
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear   
 
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 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 12 April 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 requested and reviewed a 17 February 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional, a copy of which has been provided to you, and to which no rebuttal was received. 
 
You served an honorable enlistment in the Navy from 1984 to 1992.  You reenlisted on 1 April 1992.  On 23 June 1992, you commenced a period of unauthorized absence, and you were declared a deserter.  On 14 August 1992, you were apprehended in  returned to naval control.  On 3 September 1992, you were convicted by a special court-martial for unauthorized absence and received a period of confinement as punishment.  On 23 September 1992, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and your rights in connection therewith.  You waived your right to an administrative board and noted that you did not object to the separation.  Your commanding officer transmitted your separation package to the Chief of Naval Personnel on 5 October 1992.  On 30 Oct 1992, the Chief of Naval Personnel approved you separation with an other than honorable characterization of service and you were so discharged on 25 November 1992.   
 
In 2000, you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) seeking review of your discharge characterization.  In your petition, you explained that your wife had attempted suicide in while you were stationed in , and that you eventually were afforded 30 days leave.  Ultimately, your wife told you that she would not reconcile with you while you were still in the Navy, and you became an unauthorized absentee.  Looking back, you believe it was the worst decision you have ever made.  The NDRB denied your petition for relief, finding that the discharge characterization was proper and equitable. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Hagel and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to, your contentions that you made a poor decision in 1992 because you were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to your spouse’s suicide attempt, and that you requested help from your chain of command and chaplain but no help was given to you.  In connection with your contentions, the Board sought the 17 February 2021 AO.  The AO reviewed all of your contentions and available records.  The AO found that: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a psychiatric diagnosis or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated PTSD or other mental health conditions. There is no indication in Petitioner’s in-service record, or his personal statement, he was exposed to a primary or secondary trauma. Although Petitioner contended he suffers from\ PTSD, he did not provide any details of symptoms, traumatic event, or clinical diagnosis making it difficult to devise a timeline of onset and development of mental health symptoms or identify a nexus with his in-service misconduct. No evidence to support the claim of PTSD, or other mental health conditions, has been presented.  
 
The AO concluded, “[b]ased on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with PTSD or other major mental health condition, suffered from PTSD or other major mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other major mental health conditions.” 
 
Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief.  The Board considered the findings of the AO and determined that the severity of your misconduct while you were on active duty, which resulted in a court-martial conviction, outweighed the mitigating factors that you raised.  The Board noted that you did not provide post-service materials to assist it in determining the clemency factors set forth in the Wilkie Memo.  Given the totality of the circumstances, and in light of the misconduct that was the cause of your discharge, 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, 
  
4/20/2021
Executive Director