DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8299-20 Ref: Signature Date 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 16 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, 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 31 May 2021 which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy on 20 November 2000. On 30 August 2002, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two instances of unauthorized absence (UA). On 27 August 2004, you received a second NJP for two UA periods from 10-22 July 2004 and 20-23 August 2004. On 18 January 2005, you received a third NJP for insubordinate conduct, willfully disobeying an order from a petty officer, and five instances of UA when you reported late to work three days and missed general quarters and duty section muster. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your Commanding Officer (CO) recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The discharge authority approved the CO’s recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 8 April 2005, 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 31 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, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Additionally, the AO noted that although you assert you suffered from a mental health condition, you did not provide any evidence of symptoms, traumatic events, or a post-service clinical diagnosis to support your claim. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the evidence does not 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 AO was provided to you on 3 June 2021, and you were given 30 days to respond. When you did not respond within 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 you require help for your PTSD. You further contend that “review of [your] 201 file will show discrepancies during [your] service” but you do not personally provide any specific information. The Board noted the advocacy letter provided by your father which provided a list of discrepancies and contentions. The Board considered your father’s contention the Navy failed you and was “negligent in its duty while making you an example to others” and “only wanted to get rid of [you] and not help [you].” The Board also considered your father’s contention your contract extension was not “cancelled back” to your four-year contract after you did not pass “A” school but noted the enlistment guarantee you signed made you aware the Navy had the option to require you to remain subject to the continued naval service. The Board further considered your father’s allegation that you received two Good Conduct Medals, which you should not have received due to the NJPs, but he provided this as an example of poor leadership because the command was not reviewing your records. The Board however noted you did not receive a Good Conduct Medal and the awards page in your record reflects the new starting dates for the Good Conduct Medal clock after your NJPs. Additionally, the Board considered your father’s contention that your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) was missing a lot of information such as awards and allocations of time for combat, hostile pay, hazard duty, and sea time. However, the Board noted a Change to your DD Form 214 (DD Form 215) was issued on 23 July 2015 which corrected these items. The Board further considered your father’s contention that you suffer from PTSD as a result of your deployments and your command’s leadership. The Board considered your contention you served time in a combat zone and should have the benefits you need to seek help, but noted you did not submit any supporting medical documentation or treatment notes, with your submission or in response to the AO, which might have provided evidence of symptoms, traumatic events, or a post-service clinical diagnosis to support your claim. The Board also noted you did not did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents describing your character or post-service accomplishments 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. 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 the contentions discussed above. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your misconduct 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, 8/9/2021 Executive Director