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

Docket No:  11067-18 3852-16 
Ref:  Signature Date 

Dear

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 14 November 2018.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would 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.
 
Because your application was submitted with new matters 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 21 April 2020.  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 21 June 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional. The AO was provided to you on 2 July 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.
 
You presented as new matters, a letter attesting to your character from your commanding officer (CO), medical diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist and treatment materials, including your hospital discharge papers for post-traumatic stress disorder treatment, and your spouse’s oncological diagnosis and treatment.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the statements and evidence you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were 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 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” the 25 August 2017 memorandum, “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,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.” 

As part of the review process, a qualified Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from PTSD during your service.  The AO noted that in your pre-enlistment paperwork, you acknowledged pre-service drug use and reported two speeding tickets, a ticket for running a red light, and another fine for being a minor in possession.  On 20 March 1990, you were referred for a medical screening for Level-III alcohol treatment.  You were diagnosed with psychological dependence to alcohol use and recommended to attend alcoholics anonymous and be prescribed Antabuse while on a waitlist for Level-III treatment.  In June 1990, you were discharged from a 47-day inpatient hospitalization for alcohol treatment, with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in partial remission.  You deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Storm from 12 January 1991 to 23 March 1991.  After your court-martial, you received a psychological evaluation in which you stated that you did not recall the assault due to intoxication.  You reported adolescent polysubstance abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, and speed and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence.  You were discharged in May 1992, with a combat action ribbon after declining assistance for your substance use problem.  In your discharge physical, you denied mental health symptoms such as depression, nervous trouble, trouble sleeping, but endorsed loss of memory or amnesia.  In your current request for review, you submitted a March 2015 civilian psychiatrist note that you were seen following a five-day inpatient psychiatric hospitalization for acute substance detoxification and stabilization of symptoms diagnosed as combat-related PTSD.  In June 2015, you were discharged from a two-month psychosocial rehabilitation program following a 28-day substance abuse program.  You submitted April 2015 medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) listing diagnoses of alcohol use disorder and PTSD.  You submitted evidence of treatment for breast cancer for your spouse in 2017.  You submitted a letter of support from your former CO, who stated that he felt your discharge character of service was unnecessarily harsh.  You also submitted a statement of support from your son.  The AO noted that you have a diagnosis of PTSD that can be attributed to military service.  Additionally, you have a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder that is “not attributed to military service, as you entered military service with an alcohol-related civilian conviction.” The AO determined that, unfortunately, the majority of your misconduct is better attributed to alcohol use disorder rather than PTSD.  You had three NJPs prior to your deployment in Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  You received Level-III inpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder also prior to your deployment.  Accordingly, your misconduct prior to your deployment cannot be attributed to PTSD.  It is possible that PTSD exacerbated alcohol use in your misconduct following your deployment, but it is as likely that you were continuing your alcohol use behavior despite treatment and military justice consequences.  Additional records, such as your medical records describing your PTSD symptoms and their specific link to your misconduct, are required to render an alternate opinion.  Should you choose to submit additional records, they will be reviewed in the context of your claims.  The AO concluded that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to attribute all of your misconduct to PTSD incurred in military service. The Board substantially concurred with the AO for the reasons stated therein and determined, under the totality of the circumstances, there is no probable material error or injustice in the discharge and there is insufficient evidence to attribute all of your misconduct to any mental health condition incurred in military service.  

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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,