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

Docket No: 8492-17 
MAY 14, 2019 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 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 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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, an advisory · opinion (AO) dated 14 February 2018, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 10 December 1990. During the period from 28 September 1992 to 14 October 1993, you received four non-judicial punishments (NJP) for two instances of dereliction of duty, willful disobedience of a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful order, and possession of marijuana. You were also convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence From your appointed place of duty, wrongful use of marijuana, and breaking restriction. 

Subsequently, you were notified of administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable (0TH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that you be separated with an 0TH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. On 24 November 1993, you were discharged. 

Your contention that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 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 Docket No: 8492-17 Disorder," of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards 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 of25 August 2017.  

A qualified Navy mental health professional also reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO dated 14 February 2018 regarding your assertion that you suffered from PTSD. The AO noted that you claimed a physical assault by fellow Marines contributed to the misconduct that led to your 0TH discharge. The AO noted, too, that you petitioned the BCNR in 1998 and 2001 to have your discharge upgraded, contending that, at the time of your misconduct, you had been suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and explosive disorder. You did not, however, mention an assault or PTSD symptoms in the two petitions. The AO also noted that, while you provided medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) documenting your visits from February to September 2017, the submitted mental health records only documented your complaint of the alleged assault in visits dated after your June 2017 petition. The AO added that there are no military records documenting that an assault or alleged assault occurred against you during your military service. The AO thus concluded that the reviewed material does not support your contention that your reported post-service diagnosis of PTSD can be attributed to your military service, and that your misconduct while in the service cannot be attributed to PTSD or a PTSD related disorder. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your rebuttal to the AO, your diagnosis of PTSD and depression, and your desire to upgrade your character of service, as well as your contention that PTSD contributed to your misconduct. The Board, however, found no nexus between PTSD and your misconduct. The Board also concurred with the AO that there was insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had service-connected PTSD that contributed to your misconduct. Moreover, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found that the seriousness of your repeated misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and a SCM conviction merited your receipt of an 0TH discharge. 

In regard to your contention that you requested a second urinalysis that was never given, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.
 
In regard to your contention that you were never offered treatment, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence contrary to your contention. The record clearly shows that after completing Level-III Alcohol Rehabilitation, you did not attend aftercare and started drinking again. On 29 June 1993, you were diagnosed to be alcohol dependent in relapse and continued to drink despite serious consequences and Level III-treatment.

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 matters. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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,