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. 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 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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). You enlisted in the Navy on 3 January 1985. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history on 10 October 1984 both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 7 August 1985 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence that ended after five days on 12 August 1985. In lieu of disciplinary action, the five days of UA “time lost” were administratively added to the end date of your active obligated service. On 5 November 1985 you were issued a “Page 13” warning (Page 13) for failing to maintain sufficient funds in your checking account to cover checks written. The Page 13 stated that any further deficiencies in performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative separation that could result in an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service. On 25 March 1986 you received non-judicial punishment for five separate specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling eleven days. On 28 April 1987 your command referred you for a drug/alcohol dependency evaluation after you reported for work late with alcohol on your breath. You were recommended to attend Level II alcohol rehabilitation treatment. However, you refused such treatment. Following a positive urinalysis test for marijuana, on 29 May 1987 your command notified you that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure for refusing to participate in a Navy rehabilitation treatment program. After consulting with counsel you waived your rights to submit statements to the separation authority and to present your case to an administrative separation board. In the interim, on 14 July 1987 you additionally refused VA rehabilitation treatment prior to your discharge. Ultimately, on 21 July 1987 you were separated from the Navy for misconduct with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. As part of the Board review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 15 February 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a mental health diagnosis or psychological/behavioral changes indicating a mental health condition. The Ph.D. noted that while you asserted you suffered from mental health issues on active duty, you did not provide any evidence of symptoms, traumatic events, or post-service clinical diagnoses to support your claim. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to your contentions that: (a) you are receiving Social Security Disability Insurance payments; and (b) you have suffered from depression your entire life and been through treatment for your mental health condition. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded that there was no convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms. Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from BCNR on 18 February 2020 to specifically provide additional documentary material. The Board also concluded that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions. Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average was 2.67 in conduct. Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious misconduct, which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge. The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. The Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious as to deserve a discharge upgrade. The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Sailor. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH. 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, 4/21/2021 Executive Director