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

Docket No:  8956-18 Ref: Signature date 


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 16 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 31 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional, your rebuttal of 27 June 2019, and the enclosed, 15 July 2019 updated AO. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 5 February 1986.  On 26 June 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for willful destruction of military property.  Additionally, you were counseled, and warned that further deficiencies in your performance or conduct, could result in administrative discharge action.  On 23 October 1986, you received NJP for failing to obey a lawful order. On 12 October 1987, you were counseled concerning your failure to exhibit responsibility, by reporting off leave approximately two days late.  Again, you were counseled, and warned that further deficiencies in your performance or conduct, could result in administrative discharge action.  On 25 June 1988, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongfully receiving stolen currency.  On 20 September 1988, you were carried to the medical department by stretcher after a negative response when asked to wake-up.  The assessment was ETOH intoxication. On 15 November 1988, you were brought onboard ship by a shipmate as a result of unknown alcohol intake.  On 7 February 1989, you were notified of administrative action to separate you from the naval service due to your pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  After being advised of your procedural rights, you waived them, including your rights to consult with legal counsel or request that your case be heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 13 February 1989, you were convicted by a second SCM of failing to go to your appointed place of duty, disrespect, and two instances of disobedience of a lawful order.  On 16 February 1989, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to your pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  On 24 February 1989, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that you be discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 10 March 1989, 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, “ClarifyingGuidance 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 provided the Board with AOs regarding your assertion you were suffering from PTSD during your service.  The AO noted, in part, that you submitted a personal statement that you had been diagnosed with PTSD from childhood trauma.  You submitted an April 2018 outpatient mental health treatment plan from a civilian mental health clinician listing diagnoses of major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate and PTSD.  The AO noted that you submitted limited clinical evidence that you were experiencing a mental health condition during your military service.  You submitted a post-service treatment plan which showed that you have a diagnoses of depression and PTSD.  However, the AO noted that there is no indication that you were experiencing those mental health concerns almost thirty years previously when you were in the military.  At that time, the AO determined that additional records, such as post-service medical records describing the timeline of your mental health condition and the specific link between the symptoms of your mental health condition and your misconduct, are required to render an alternate opinion.  Based on the available evidence, it was opined that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to a mental health condition incurred during military service. 
In response to your rebuttal documents, an updated AO states that you submitted a letter from your civilian mental health provider that he has been providing you treatment for PTSD “on and off for approximately four years.” The civilian provider noted that you had multiple traumas, including a traumatic car accident at age eleven, and getting assaulted in the brig late in your Naval career.  The provider acknowledges, “I cannot say that his PTSD occurred before his naval service or even during it, but at the moment of my meeting him it was definitely apparent and severe.” The updated AO noted that you have a diagnosis of PTSD that a civilian provider has determined is related to military service.  However, the updated AO continued to opine that the evidence is insufficient that you incurred PTSD from your Navy experiences.  The updated AO also determined that the evidence is insufficient to attribute your misconduct to symptoms of PTSD.  As noted by the updated AO, the majority of your misconduct, such as failure to exhibit responsibility, destruction of military property, and wrongfully receiving stolen money, are not behaviors typically associated with PTSD symptoms.  While alcohol use can be an attempt to self-medicate PTSD symptoms, the updated AO again determined that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to unrecognized PTSD. 


The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, as well as your contentions that is has been 29 years, that is long enough for a punishment, that you gave three years of your life, that you are a Veteran, and you believe that you deserve Veterans benefits.  You stated that you have been seeing a therapist for many years, have been diagnosed with PTSD, and assert that you had it as a child as a result of the way your mother raised you in the absence of your father.  You stated that you were immature when you joined the Navy, and thought that the military would make “a man” out of you.  However, the Board concluded that these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your misconduct that resulted in two NJPs and two SCM convictions, as well as the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct after your first NJP.  The Board also concurred with the AO statements that there is insufficient evidence to attribute you 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.