DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5891-17/ 4518-05 APR 12 2018 Dear : This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 5 July 2017. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of 1 September 2005, that your applications had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board ofCorrection ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conseientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with a new assertion that was not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application based on the new contention provided. In this regard, your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records on 26 February 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. 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, and the Medical Corps officer's Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 7 December 2017. Your contention that you suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 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 ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification oftheir Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of25 August 2017. The Board considered your contention that at the time ofyour military service, you were suffering from PTSD resulting from witnessing an attempted suicide by your shipmate, , at , in 1990. You also indicate that you were traumatized by the attempted suicide by hanging ofa second shipmate. You state that you were diagnosed with PTSD in 2017, and provide treatment notes from LLC that confinn your diagnosis ofbipolar disorder and PTSD. The Board noted that a Medical Corps officer reviewed your request for reconsideration and provided the Board with an AO dated 7 December 2017, regarding your allegations of suffering from PTSD while on active duty. The AO states that based "on the preponderance ofthe evidence, it is my considered medical opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support Mr. Boone's contention that he suffered from PTSD at the time ofthe service." You were provided the AO and submitted a rebuttal through counsel, on 8 January 2018. Your counsel notes that he was unable to ascertain the author ofthe AO's credentials, and that he was not provided a copy ofthe AO despite being counsel ofrecord. Your counsel contends that the AO is irrelevant because the lack ofevidence supporting a PTSD diagnosis while you were in the Navy is consistent with the manner in which PTSD as a disorder develops. Your counsel cites the DSM-IV to support that PTSD is a delayed type ofanxiety ref!ction, and states that your post-service diagnosis ofPTSD is clearly established. Your counsel states you "never contended (you) suffered from PTSD at the time ofservice" and argues that your post-service PTSD diagnosis is a mitigating factor. The Board found that you contend that you experienced the trauma ofwitnessing two suicide attempts while you were in the Navy but you did not provide specific information corroborating the incidents. The Board reviewed your available medical record and found that your hospitalization for a suicide attempt in February 1990 did not support a finding ofPTSD resulting from an in-service event or experience. Given the lack ofindependent information about the attempted suicides and based on the available record, the Board determined that it could not find that your condition ofPTSD or the experience that .caused the PTSD occurred during military service. Although the Board considered your-post service PTSD diagnosis as a mitigating factor, the Board found the evidence did not establish a nexus between the PTSD and your misconduct. When reviewing your record, the Board noted that during your 4 months and 21 days in the Navy you received three nonjudicial punishments for dereliction in performance ofduty, absent from appointed place ofduty, failure to obey a lawful order, and wrongfully communicating a threat. Even in consideration ofthe medical evidence you provided, the Board determined that your other than honorable characterization ofservice was supported by your · three nonjudicial punishments and that your service characterization was issued without error or injustice. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence· is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In the absence ofsufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. 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