DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1183-16 
JUN 27 2016 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10, 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 statnte of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 13 May 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 statntes, 
regulations, and policies. 

Board regulations state that personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but 
only when the Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. The 
Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered the case based on 
the evidence ofrecord. 

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 ofactive duty on 23 February 1993. Although your 
record is incomplete, your record shows a period oftime lost from 2 December 1996 to 
17 June 1997, and thatyou received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 1July1997 for 
unauthorized absence. It also appears that administrative discharge action was initiated as a result 
of drug abuse, because on 2 October 1997, you were discharged with an other than honorable 
characterization of service by reason ofmisconduct due to drug abuse. 

The Board, in its review ofyour application and record, although incomplete, carefully weighed 
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your characterization of service 
and your assertion ofpost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, the Board concluded 
these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because no error or injustice was 
identified in your records and you submitted no evidence to support your claims ofa PTSD 
diagnosis. The presumption ofregularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in 
this case in the absence ofa complete discharge package. Accordingly, your application has 
been denied. 

Your assertion of PTSD 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" of September 3, 2014. However, the Board concluded that the 
statements you provided were not enough to outweigh the seriousness of your misconduct. 
Additionally, you provided no evidence to support your assertion that PTSD may have existed at 
the time of your misconduct. As a result, the Board was unable to substantiate your claims of 
PTSD at the time ofyour misconduct and it was their opinion that the seriousness of your 
misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would be offered by the PTSD. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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 or other matters not previously considered by the Board within one year from the date 
of the Board's decision. 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 ofan 
official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable 
material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director