DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2975-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This 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 for Correction of Naval Records (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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2020. 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, applicable statutes, regulations and policies, as well as the 6 May 2020 advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy mental health professional. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy on 8 October 1998. On 3 September 1999, you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 22 March 1999 to 1 September 1999. On 14 January 2000, you began another period of UA. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that you be discharged by reason of misconduct with an OTH characterization of service. On 14 March 2000, you were discharged in absentia. Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your undated handwritten contention that your military sexual trauma (MST) “was never addressed by my superior PO and instructors.” 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 Board’s review, a Navy mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with the 6 May 2020 AO. The AO noted there is no account of any instances of MST in your personal statement or your husband’s statement in which he described the behavioral changes he observed while you were in training. The AO further stated you did not provide any additional clinical records or evidence to support the occurrence of MST or the existence of a mental health condition. The AO determined there was insufficient evidence of a MST or mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was provided to you on 7 May 2020 and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not respond within 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention you were erroneously discharged without an opportunity to address your concerns at an administrative discharge board or to seek counseling and/or medical treatment prior to your discharge. The Board further considered your contention that you never received separation counseling advising you of your rights. The Board noted your administrative separation processing notice was initialed and signed by you on 10 March 2000 and determined there was insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the signed document. Additionally, the Board reviewed the statements by you and your spouse which were previously provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs and submitted with your package and considered your contention you suffered discriminatory treatment which “put you in a mental state” where you needed help. Lastly, the Board considered the undated, handwritten note in your submission that states your “MST claim was never addressed by my superior PO and instructors.” TheBoard, relying upon the AO, determined additional evidence and post-service records were required before a determination could be made regarding whether MST mitigated the misconduct which led to your administrative discharge and OTH characterization. Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to establish an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to your characterization of service. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case 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 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,