DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8435-16 NOV 20 2017 Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions oftitle 1O 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 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 4 October 2017. 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, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without connsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue( s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 11 June 1984. You served for about seven months without disciplinary incident, but on 29 January 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny. On 24 June 1986, you were the subject ofa Medical Board, and you were diagnosed with left painful knee syndrome (secondary to probable over use). The Medical Board recommended that you remain on limited duty ofsix months. On 10 September 1986, you were referred to the Counseling and Assistance Center (CAAC) by your command after seeking help with an alcohol problem. You were previously evaluated in 1985 while stationed in as alcohol dependent and having a mixed personality disorder; you attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting and were prescribed Antabuse until December 1985. CAAC recommended that you should receive personal counseling at the Family Service Center (FSC), resume attending AA meeting, and ifnecessary be placed back on Antabuse. Your mental health evaluation revealed you harbored a lot ofinner turmoil, unrest and psychological conflict that caused relationship problems with supervisors. By 19 September 1986, you received your second NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit. On 17 October 1986, you were the 'subject ofa psychiatric evaluation and diagnosed with mixed personality disorder and alcohol dependence (in remission) and not fit for duty in the Navy. On 29 October 1986, you received your third NJP. Your offenses were UA from your unit, dereliction in the performance ofduties, not wearing the proper uniform items, and insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation by reason ofmisconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct at which time you waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ABD). Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 8 December 1986, you were discharged. 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. The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors and contention that you were due a medical discharge and request to be granted a general characterization to receive medical attention and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case due to your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs and that you did not provide sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to support your claim. Regarding your concern about eligibility for healthcare whether or not you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance ofthe Department ofVeterans Affairs (DVA), and you should contact the nearest office ofDVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. 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 MilitaryINa val Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PostTraumatic Stress Disorder'' of September 3, 2014. The memorandum recognizes that these Boards are not investigative bodies, butprovides 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 of a veteran's discharge from the military. However, the Board concluded the information in your service record and documentation you provided from the New York State Office ofTemporary and Disability Assistance was not enough to substantiate your claim ofPTSD at the time ofyour misconduct. It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director