DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7412-18 Ref: Signature date 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 for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that 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 18 November 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 4 June 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional. On 25 April 2018, the Board wrote you requesting additional medical or clinical evidence from you in support of your claim, and received no response. The AO was provided to you on 5 June 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 14 March 1974. On 31 January 1975 and 2 February 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling two days. On 3 February 1976, you were counseled concerning your marginal professional performance and attitude toward your work. On 26 May 1976 and 27 July 1976, you received NJP for three periods of UA totaling 64 days, and breaking restriction. On 29 July 1976, you were notified of administrative action to discharge you from the naval service by reason of unsuitability because of apathy and defective attitude. After being advised of, and waiving, your procedural rights, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service. The separation authority subsequently directed that you receive a characterization of service warranted by your service record. On 3 August 1976, you received a GEN discharge. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your conduct average was 2.8. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required to be considered for an honorable characterization of service. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from unrecognized post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 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.” As part of the review process, a 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 you did not report any psychiatric abnormalities in your discharge physical. Discharge paperwork indicates that you had a diagnosed personality disorder. The AO further noted that you have submitted no documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD. In-service, you were apparently diagnosed as suffering from long-standing character traits, which interfered with your ability to adequately fulfill your military obligations. The AO determined that additional records, such as post-service medical records, describing your PTSD symptoms and their specific relation to your conduct in the military, are required to render an alternate opinion. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, it was opined that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service, and desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered your assertions that you were having family issues, as well as experiencing PTSD issues, that you made attempts at resolving your problems, but you were unable to find any support programs, that you had turned to your supervisor for help, but that he only exacerbated the problem, making it more “hostile and vindictive.” However, the Board concluded that these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in four NJPs. Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD. 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.