DEPARTMENT OFTHE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 4053-17 
APR 02 2018 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10, United States Code, Section 1552: After careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish tlie existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

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 22 February 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 ofyour naval record, applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies, and the Advisory Opinion. (AO) from the Bureau ofMedicine 
and Surgery (BUMED), dated 26 April 2017. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 12February1990. Your medical 
records indicate that you began experiencing headaches related to stress and anxiety within the 
first five months ofyour enlistment and that you continued you struggle with mental health 
issues relating to anxiety and stress. You received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) on 15 
April 1992 and 7 May 1992, for separate periods ofunauthorized absence (UA). On 13 August 
1992, at special court martial proceedings, you were found guilty ofviolating the Uniform Code 
ofMilitary Justice Article 86 (unauthorized absence), Article 87 (missing movement), Article 
112a (wrongful use ofa controlled substance), Article 121 (larceny), and Article 134 (violation 
ofgeneral article). The Court sentenced you to confinement for 120 days, reduction in rank to El, 
forfeiture ofpay, and a bad conduct discharge. You were discharged from the Navy on 22 
September 1993, on the basis ofconviction by special court martial, and received a bad conduct 
discharge and a reentry (RE) code ofRE-4. 

You request an upgrade to your discharge characterization on the basis that you were suffering 
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time of your military service. Your request 
was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light ofthe Secretary ofDefense's 
Memorandum, "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval 
Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder" of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge. Review 
Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans 
for Modification oftheir Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual 
Harassment" memorandum of25 August 2017. 

BUMED also reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with 
an AO dated 26 April 2017, regarding your assertion ofsuffering from PTSD. The AO noted 
that your in-service medical record establishes that you suffered from anxiety and stress during 
your naval service. The AO concluded that based "on the preponderance ofthe evidence, it is 
my considered medical opinion that suffered from a mental health condition at the 
time of service that interfered with his (judgment) and led to an undesirable discharge." 

The Board agreed with the Ao and believed that mental health issues may have been a factor 
that interfered with your judgment but ultimately struggled with the seriousness and frequency of 
your misconduct and the larceny charge in particular. Even taking the mental health issues as an 
influencing factor on your behavior, the Board found that the crime oflarceny coupled with the 
multiple incidents ofmisconduct was significant enough to merit the bad conduct discharge. 

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 ofregularity 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