DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 5625-16 
DEC 23 2016 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title 10 of the 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 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 8 August 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
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. 

In regarding your request for a personal appearance, 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. In your case, the Board determined that a 
personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 
record. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. 

Your appointment as an Officer in the U.S. Navy began a period ofactive duty on 12 May2000. 
You served without disciplinary incident until 24 August 2009, when you received nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) for violation ofthe Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) Article 133, 
conduct unbecoming an officer and Article 134 adultery. As a result ofthe foregoing, the Board 
oflnquiry process was initiated. Thereafter, the separation authority directed a general under 
honorable conditions discharge by reason ofmisconduct On 31 October 2010, you were so 
discharged. You were afforded the opportunity to request an upgrade ofyour discharge through 
the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) on 8 November 2011 and 10 May 2013 and review 
authority concluded that the discharge you received was proper as issued and that no change is 
warranted. 

The Board took into consideration your contentions with the NDRB's final decision an 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 ofpost-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these 
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case, because no error or injustice was 
identified in its review ofyour records and you provided no evidence to support your claim. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Your assertion ofPTSD was 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 Requests by Veterans Claiming PostTraumatic 
Stress Disorder" ofSeptember 3, 2014. However, the Board concluded that any 
prereported PTSD at the time ofyour offences was not a reasonable cause because of your 
serious and willful misconduct. 

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 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