DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7997-18 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 9 December 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 18 July 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional (MHP). The AO was provided to you on 22 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 October 1976. On 20 August 1977, you were seen by medical personnel for chemical corneal abrasion of both of your eyes. On 9 May 1978, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 125 days. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor and forfeitures of pay. On 29 January 1979, you were convicted by a second SPCM of two specifications of UA totaling 142 days. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor, a reduction in paygrade, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 17 December 1979, you were so discharged. 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 MHP further reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from PTSD during your service. The AO noted that in October 1976, you requested to be evaluated for “emotional problems,” and it was noted that you were considering absenting yourself from your unit without authorization. You were diagnosed with an immature personality, manifested by traits of anxiety, feelings of persecution, and claustrophobia. In January 1977, you were evaluated for sleepwalking and claustrophobia, which were determined not to be grounds for separation from active duty. In February 1977, it was determined that you did not show signs of “severe personality disorder” that would require administrative separation, but that you should be disqualified from submarine duty due to your fear of confined spaces. In August 1977, you were treated for chemical burns to your eyes. In May 1978, you were evaluated by mental health, with a diagnosis of immature personality disorder. It was noted that you joined the military service under the duress of criminal charges for trespassing and interstate flight, which were dropped when your lawyer informed the court that you were enlisting in the Navy. You reported a history of anxiety during childhood and an explosive temper, being involved in multiple fights resulting in your expulsion from school in the fifth grade and again in junior high. You were reportedly kicked out of your home at age 15, after a fight in which you broke your stepfather’s nose. In January 1979, you were diagnosed with claustrophobia and immature personality disorder. In your request for review, you submitted a statement that you incurred PTSD following the shipboard accident in which you suffered chemical burns to your eyes. The MHP noted that you have provided no medical information that you have a diagnosis of PTSD that can be attributed to your military service, aside from your personal statement. In-service, you were diagnosed with claustrophobia and immature personality traits. These diagnoses were pre-existing to your military service, per your in-service report. The MHP determined that there is insufficient information to attribute your misconduct to an in-service mental health condition other than your diagnosed personality disorder. The MHP opined that additional, post-service records describing your PTSD symptoms and their specific link to your in-service misconduct are required to render an alternate opinion. However, the MHP further opined that it is difficult to consider how your periods of UA should be related to PTSD symptoms from chemical burns, as you were considering going UA and diagnosed with a personality disorder several months before the burn accident. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it was opined that there is insufficient information to attribute your misconduct to PTSD incurred in-service. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, having once suffered chemical burns to your eyes, and your in-service diagnosis of “immature personality.” The Board also considered your assertions that following the chemical burns incident, you purportedly suffered acute psychological distress and spent time absent without leave, that you were “railroaded” and that leadership had told you that your BCD would automatically be upgraded to a general discharge in ten years. You state that it was not until you applied for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits that you learned this was not true, and although your conduct was “less than exemplary,” you believe you were suffering from an acute PTSD case, and that your medical records show at least some markers to support it. However, the Board concluded these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in two SPCM convictions for very lengthy periods of UA. In a prior petition to this Board, No. 3111-02 of 28 January 2003, you contended that your UAs and SPCM convictions were due to claustrophobia. You now contend they were due to PTSD. The Board, however, concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD incurred in-service. Moreover, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service after any specific period of time or due solely to the passage of time. 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.