DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

DocketNo: 1156cl6 
NOV 16 2016 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle IO ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 29 June 2016. The names and votes ofthe members of the panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 25 July 1984. During the period 
from 19 July 1985 to 20 November 1986, you received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for 
breach ofpeace, assault, two periods ofunauthorized absence and absent from your appointed 
place ofduty and failure to go your appointed place ofduty on two occasions. 

Subsequently, you were notified ofadministrative separation, at which time you waived your 
right to consult with counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board 
(ADB). The commanding officer recommended administrative discharge with an other than 
honorable discharge (OTH). The discharge authority approved and directed discharge by reason 
ofmisconduct due to pattern ofmisconduct with an OTH discharge. On 27 January 1987, you 
were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your character ofservice and assertion ofposttraumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board 
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case, and that you did not 
provide sufficient evidence ofan error or injustice to support your claim. Further, the Board 
noted that you were given an opportunity to defend your actions and possibly receive a better 
discharge, but waived your procedural rights. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Your assertion ofPTSD was carefully considered by the Board in light ofthe Secretary of 
Defense's Memorandum "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PostTraumatic 
Stress Disorder" ofSeptember 3, 2014. The memorandum recognizes that these 
Boards are not investigative bodies, but provides supplemental guidance to assist the Boards in 
reaching fair and consistent results when considering whether medical or other evidence 
indicates PTSD may have contributed to or mitigated the circumstances ofa veteran's discharge 
from the military. However, the Board concluded the information in your service record and 
statement you provided was not enough to substantiate your claim ofPTSD at the time ofyout 
misconduct. The Board further concluded that, even ifPTSD existed at the time of your 
discharge, the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would be offered 
bythePTSD. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew and material 
evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this regard, it is 
important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director