DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3325-21 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 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 limitations 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 23 August 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). Additionally, the Board considered a 4 June 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, your 17 August 2021 response to the AO, and the reply, by the provider of the AO, to your response. You enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty on 9 November 1987. On 8 December 1987, you were issued a warning concerning your drug use, and you were enrolled in a drug urinalysis monitoring program. On 30 April 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment for a seven hour period of unauthorized absence, and you were issued a written warning concerning your actions that resulted in the nonjudicial punishment. On 18 July 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment again, but your offenses and punishment for this are not in you service record. On 29 March 1989, you were convicted by a special court-martial for a period of unauthorized absence from 8 August 1988 to 8 January 1989, and for breaking restriction on 8 August 1988. As part of your sentence, you were awarded a bad conduct discharge. On 26 October 1989, you were discharged with a bad conduct discharge. 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 Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that you developed a mental health condition during your military service, as well as PTSD, and these diagnoses mitigated the misconduct that led to your bad conduct discharge. In connection with your assertion of a mental health condition, the Board reviewed the AO, your response to the AO, and the review of your response by the mental health provider that prepared the AO. The AO found as follows: Petitioner’s in-service records did not contain evidence he was diagnosed with an unfitting mental health condition. Although Petitioner contended he suffered from PTSD/MHC, he did not provide any details of the purported trauma, his symptoms, or how his symptoms affected his ability to perform his duties or other activities of daily functioning. The lack of information made it difficult to establish a timeline of onset and development of mental health symptoms or identify a nexus with his in-service misconduct. The AO further explained that you did not provide evidence that you experienced life stressors that were extraordinary or unique. The AO concluded that the “preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition.” Your response to the findings of the AO, dated 17 August 2021, was fully reviewed by the preparer of the original AO, as well as the Board. After thoroughly reviewing your response, the AO opined that your response did not change the original findings of the AO. Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors that you raised were insufficient to warrant relief. The Board concurred with the findings of the AO. Ultimately, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, which included two nonjudicial punishments, written warnings, and a conviction by a special court-martial, outweighed the mitigating factors that you presented. 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 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, 9/13/2021 Executive Director