Docket No: 1402-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: 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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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 your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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), and the relevant Advisory Opinion. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 18 July 2000. On 12 December 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). On 8 February 2001, you received a second NJP for forgery and uttering a check without sufficient funds. On 29 October 2002, you were found guilty at summary court martial for a period of UA from 26 March 2002 to 8 October 2002. On 22 January 2003, you were discharged from the Navy on the basis of Misconduct, and received an other than honorable discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your application to the Board, you request that your other than honorable discharge be upgraded to reflect an honorable characterization, that your narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” and that your separation code be changed. You contend that: (a) you had a rough initiation into the Navy; (b) as the youngest and lowest ranking Sailor you contend that you were hazed, bullied and not given proper guidance on shipboard life; (c) you had your first exposure to alcohol, were swindled into purchasing a car in that you wrecked within a few days, and you felt like you were “slightly breaking;” (d) your grandfather passed away and you were denied leave; (e) you eventually returned home but were disowned by your father; (f) you swallowed half a bottle of pain killers and were hospitalized in a civilian mental hospital before being transferred to Naval hospital; (g) while there, you were diagnosed with manic depression, personality disorder, and bipolar disorder; (h) you were told that you would be medically discharged after your release from the hospital, but you were ultimately escorted to a flight from to to return to the ship; (i) you felt betrayed, lied to, and alone so you missed your connecting flight and did not return to the ship; (j) you received a call from a Master Chief from and were told that if you returned you would be court-martialed, serve whatever punishment was dealt, and then be medically discharged; (k) when you returned, you served 21 days in the brig, forfeited all pay, and you were administratively separated; (l) you have grown a tremendous amount, regret the actions you took and you still dream of being given the opportunity to finish your enlistment honorably; (m) you have flown overseas to military bases and entertained the troops through the Armed Forces Entertainment program; (n) you have been married for 10 years, got your AA in a specific trade and have two amazing children, and since your discharge you have worked consistently as an actor, musician and recorder, and you volunteer in your community through your church; and (o) you work hard to keep your head above water every day and request that your discharge be upgraded due to the challenging circumstances. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014, and the “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” memorandum of 25 August 2017. The Board also reviewed your petition in light of the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” of 25 July 2018. As part of the review process, a Licensed Clinical Psychologist reviewed your request, and issued an Advisory Opinion dated 8 June 2021. The Advisory Opinion noted that your in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition and that no details supporting the diagnoses were provided. The Advisory Opinion states that it is possible that you suffered from depressive symptoms after your father disowned you. However, no evidence was presented that you met the diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or personality disorder. Furthermore, no evidence is presented that you received follow up care in-service or post-service. Based on the evidence, the Advisory Opinion determined that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish that 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 Advisory Opinion was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that you were suffering from mental health conditions while you were in the Navy and including whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. The Board substantively concurred with the determinations of the Advisory Opinion and found that the preponderance of available evidence failed to establish that you were diagnosed with a mental health condition that may have mitigated your in-service misconduct. The Board found that your in-service misconduct as evidenced by your summary court martial conviction and the significant time lost reflected in your record supported your other than honorable discharge. Even in consideration of your post-discharge achievements and taking note of the challenges you state that you faced while in the Navy, the Board found that a change to your discharge is not merited under the Wilkie guidance. The Board concluded that given the frequency of your misconduct as reflected by two NJPs and one summary court martial conviction, and taking into account the length of your UAs, that your other than honorable discharge was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 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, 8/24/2021 Executive Director