DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7421-17 11592-88 MAY O1 2019 Dear : This is in reference to your reconsideration request of Docket No.: 11592-88. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised in our letter of 1 March 1989, that your application had been denied. Additionally, your previous request for reconsideration was denied on 17 December 2013. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with the Board procedures, which conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your reconsideration request has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 18 January 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and all material submitted in support of your application. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional dated 16 November 2018, which was previously provided to you and is enclosed. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You presented as new evidence your application, and a letter from a medical doctor dated 30 March 2017. The Board determined that the documentation that you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service. Your request was fully and 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 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 of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition during your service. The AO noted, in part, that no post-service treatment records were provided. You provided little information aside from your application and letter from a psychiatrist. There are inconsistencies between your previous request for review of your record which omits any mention of mental health difficulties - and your current request. In absence of post-service treatment, it was opined that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your post- service diagnosed schizoaffective disorder to your military service. It seems more reasonable to attribute your in-service misconduct to stimulate use disorder due to your repeated use of cocaine despite counseling, rather than attribute your misconduct to your post-service diagnosed mental health condition. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, and that you were diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder after your discharge. The Board also considered your assertions that you had symptoms of mania depression, were hearing voices while in the service, that your drug use was secondary to your illness, and your misconduct due to drug abuse was a question of your mental health, which was not addressed during your service. The Board concurred with the AO statement and found insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had a mental health condition which contributed to your misconduct. The Board determined that the nature of your misconduct supported your other than honorable discharge. It is regretted that the circumstances of yom case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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 of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director