DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8314-17 Dear This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, the 4 December 2018 Advisory Opinion (AO), and your rebuttal of 12 December 2018. 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty 13 July 1981. You served approximately six months without disciplinary incident. In January 1982, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a one-day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and for disobeying a lawful order. On 18 May 1983, you received a second NJP, for dereliction of duty and sleeping on security watch. In October 1983, you were serving onboard the, which was docked off the coast of the when two truck bombs struck buildings in. A Marine compound was hit, causing over 200 casualties among United States servicemembers. You were part of the search and rescue detail that mobilized after the bombing. In your application for correction and your rebuttal to the AO, you provide information regarding your efforts in, to include an affidavit submitted in conjunction with. On 13 January 1984, after the bombing, you received NJP for dereliction of duty. On 27 April 1984, you received NJP for dereliction of duty, sleeping on watch, and UA. On 27 June 1984, you received NJP for disrespect toward a commissioned officer, willful disobedience, and drinking on duty. On 19 November 1984, you received NJP for disobedience and disrespect to a petty officer, failure to obey a lawful order, UA and disrespect to a commissioned officer. On 21 December 1984, you were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service on the basis of “Misconduct-Pattern-Frequent Involvement Of A Discreditable Nature With Civil Or Military Authorities,” and received a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your petition to the Board, you request an upgrade to your characterization of service in consideration of untreated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by your involvement in the search and recover efforts following the Beirut bombing. 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. As part of the review process, a licensed clinical psychologist reviewed your assertions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 4 December 2018. The AO notes that your misconduct began before the bombing. The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that you suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service. The AO was provided to you, and on 12 December 2018, you submitted a response through counsel in which you provided a Federal Court Special Master’s report regarding your award for service connected PTSD as a result of trauma suffered in Beirut in 1983. You noted that the report was unable to be submitted with your original request for an upgrade because it had not been published. You assert that the Court’s opinion supports the fact that your misconduct following your return from was directed linked to undiagnosed PTSD. You also provided a post-service diagnosis dated 11 November 2016, in which you were evaluated by a psychologist and found to suffer from depression, anxiety, suspiciousness, flattened affect, sleep and memory impairments, problems with anger, mood, interpersonal interaction, and anxiety impacting your effectiveness at work. You were diagnosed with PTSD (moderate, depressed mood). The Board carefully reviewed your application and noted your contention that you were suffering from PTSD at the time of your misconduct and that your discharge characterization should be upgraded as a matter of justice. You contend that you began experiencing symptoms commonly associated with PTSD following your return from but that you were not screened for PTSD because such mental health screening policies were not in place at the time of your discharge. You state that after, you began to self-medicate with alcohol and as a consequence, began to commit a series of minor offenses which led to your discharge. You assert that you should have been screened and provided mental health treatment. The Board took into account your assertions and considered your post-service 11 November 2016 psychological evaluation which resulted in a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board, like the AO, noted that your misconduct began before October 1983. The Board considered that you had two NJPs prior to Beirut and the nature of your misconduct was similar both before and after the bombing. The Board found your personal statement compelling and took into consideration the Federal Court findings. The Board found significant the fact that you had misconduct (of UAs, disobedience of lawful orders, and derelictions of duty) before the bombing. Even in consideration of your tremendous efforts following the bombing, your PTSD diagnosis, and the Federal Court Special Master’s report, the Board determined that the PTSD could not be attributed as causing your misconduct from January 1984 until your discharge in December 1984. The Board found your misconduct to be a continuation of the type of behavior you displayed before the tragic events in Beirut and concluded that PTSD did not mitigate your misconduct after October 1983. The Board concluded that even taking into consideration the PTSD, your misconduct could not be overcome because it appears to be reflective of a pattern of behavior that began before. The Board also considered the separation proceedings in light of your claim that you were not given proper mental health treatment and that you were self-medicating with alcohol. The Board found that based on the nature and frequency of your six NJPs, that the Navy complied with regulatory guidance in pursuing and executing an administrative discharge on the basis of a pattern of misconduct. Furthermore, the Board did not find sufficient evidence supporting the contention that the Navy failed to provide requisite medical care prior to your discharge. The Board determined that you were not wrongfully discharged and that your other than honorable characterization of service is supported by your six NJPs. The Board concluded that a change to your record is not warranted. It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director 3