Docket No. 8706-20
Ref: Signature Date
 
Dear,  
 
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.     
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2021.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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.  In addition, the Board considered the favorable advisory opinion of 5 May 2021. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in July 2000.  After a successful career during which you attained the paygrade of E7, you tested positive for methamphetamine use in February 2019 and admitted to using the controlled substance as a coping mechanism for your mother’s death.  Non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for your wrongful use of drugs on 26 April 2019 and you were notified of administrative separation processing.  Subsequently, an administrative separation board determined you committed drug abuse and recommended your discharge with a General characterization of service.  Approximately, one week later, you again tested positive for methamphetamine use resulting in another non-judicial punishment on 23 December 2019.  However, prior to your second non-judicial punishment and eventual discharge on 13 February 2020 with a General characterization of service, you were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to childhood trauma caused by physical and sexual abuse by your mother.    
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be granted sufficient service credit to be placed on the retirement list or be reinstated to active duty in order to be processed by the Disability Evaluation System for your PTSD.  You assert that an injustice exists in your case since you were discharged just prior to qualifying for retirement based on years of active duty service.  You also believe that you should have been assessed for your PTSD prior to your discharge.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board considered the advisory opinion in your case that concluded that your drug use was, more likely than not, associated with your PTSD and that your misconduct may be mitigated by it. 
  
In reviewing the evidence in your case, the Board found no error with your administrative separation from the Navy.  You had two documented cases of misconduct involving wrongful use of a controlled substance that resulted in two non-judicial punishments.  An administrative separation board found evidence that you committed drug abuse and recommended you be discharged with a General characterization of service.  The fact you were diagnosed with PTSD prior to your discharge did not require the Navy stop your administrative separation processing to assess whether you should have been referred to the Disability Evaluation System.  In fact, the Board found no evidence that your medical provider determined you should be referred to a medical board and released you without limitations in December 2019.  Therefore, based on these facts, the Board found no error with the Navy’s decision to discharge you for drug abuse.  
 
The more difficult issue for the Board was whether an injustice exists in your case to merit granting you service credit or reinstating you to active duty.  Ultimately, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence did not support any relief in your case.  In making this determination, the Board took into consideration that you chose to commit a second act of drug abuse after your first non-judicial punishment.  The Board found no evidence that you were not mentally responsible for your actions or misconduct.  In the Board’s opinion, while your PTSD may mitigate your behavior, it does not excuse it.  The Board felt you already received a large measure of mitigation based on your PTSD since the Navy chose not to reprocess your administrative separation; something that would have accounted for your second drug offense and likely would have resulted in an Other than Honorable characterization of service.  Finally, the Board determined there is no right to retirement and you were well aware of the consequences of wrongfully using a controlled substance.  After weighing the totality of the evidence, the Board concluded that your PTSD offers insufficient mitigation to grant you the relief you are seeking.  As mentioned above, this finding was made after considering the favorable advisory opinion in your case.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
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,    

8/9/21

Deputy Director