DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6779-18 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the 3 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to you and to which no response was received. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their 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 on 22 January 1981. A service record entry dated 2 May 1984, states the you were given a waiver for a civil conviction involving a vehicular homicide by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command in January 1981. During the period from 7 November 1986 to 22 April 1987, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for four periods of unauthorized absence (UA), disobeying a lawful order, drunkenness-incapacitation due to wrongful over indulgence of intoxicating liquor. Additionally, you were counseled and warned, after your second NJP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. Subsequently, on 23 April 1987, you were notified of the initiation of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you elected to make a written statement on your behalf concerning your disappointment that you were forced you to change your job rating, causing you to lose pride in your work. You waived your right to request that your case be heard before an administrative discharge board. On 4 May 1987, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 13 May 1987, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 15 May 1987, you received an OTH characterization of service. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from mental health condition at the time of 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.” A qualified Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from mental health condition during your service. The AO noted, that you submitted a statement that a few weeks before entering active duty in the Navy, you were the driver in a car accident in which you best friend and passenger was injured and later died from his injuries. After a few years of military service, civil authorities convicted you of vehicular homicide, and you served 30 days in jail using your military leave you had accrued. You added that you developed depression following this experience, which resulted in excessive alcohol consumption, and submitted an undated letter expressing hopelessness, guilt, and emotional pain to a significant other. No other records were available for review. You submitted no information that you have a diagnosis of PTSD. While a motor vehicle accident with fatalities meets criteria of a traumatic incident, a diagnosis of PTSD requires other symptoms as well. Additionally, the accident occurred prior to entering into the military service and your misconduct did not begin for another five years. It seems more reasonable to attribute your misconduct to your dissatisfaction with your rate change than to PTSD. In-service, you complained of experiencing symptoms of depression but was found fit for duty upon evaluation by a medical provider. Additional information, such as medical records listing your mental health diagnoses and the specific link between your diagnosis and your military misconduct, is required to render an alternate opinion. However, at this time, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition during military service. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, request to have your characterization of service changed, that you were involved in an automobile accident where you were the driver, your best friend was badly injured and passed away from his injuries, and you went on active duty less than three weeks after the funeral. The Board also considered your assertions that you were a good Sailor for most of your enlistment, then things went wrong and everything fell apart in a short amount of time, you did not understand why at the time, but after an attempted suicide and a lot of therapy, you believe you suffered from PTSD. In 1980, after reporting to your ship, you were depressed, moody, feeling overwhelmed, and no matter what you did, you could not shake your feelings. Further, you assert that you started to drink excessively to try to deal with your feelings and believe you were suffering from PTSD due to your accident and death of your best friend. The Board concluded these mitigating factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct after your second NJP. Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition during military service. With regard to your original 6-year contract, you voluntarily extended your enlistment to remain on active duty on 5 July 1984. This agreement extended your enlistment for 13 months in order for you to accept orders. Thereby, you did not remain on active duty beyond your contract or lawful extension of duty. 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,