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

Docket No. 910-18 
AUG 12 2018 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 10 July 2012. After careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 26 July 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to your 
characterization of service and change to your narrative reason for separation to disability. The 
Board considered your case under the clarifying guidance was issued to this Board by the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness memorandum "Clarifying Guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering 
Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, 
Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment" of25 Aug 2017, The Board liberally considered whether 
your dysthymia diagnosis on 21 October 1994 excused, mitigated, or outweighed the Other than 
Honorable discharge you were issued as a result of your wrongful drug use or warranted a 
change to your narrative reason for separation. Unfortunately, the Board again determined that 
there is no error or injustice in your record based on the totality ofthe evidence. First, the Board 
concluded that you do not qualify for a change to your narrative reason for separation. A review 
ofyour record shows that you earned a 4.0 trait average on your 12 June 1994 performance 
evaluation prior to your 6 September 1994 positive urinalysis for marijuana. In addition to your 
performance traits .that placed you well above the fleet average, you also were advanced in 
paygrade in 1994. These facts convinced the Board that you were fully capable of performing 
the duties associated with your office, grade, rank or rating at the time ofyour discharge for 
misconduct. Based on this finding, the Board concluded that you were fit for continued active 
service despite the finding that you were not psychiatrically fit for full duty on 21 October 1994. 
Additionally, the Board also determined that your condition was a preexisting disability 
condition that did not qualify for military disability benefits based on the diagnosis issued on 21 
October 1994. The diagnosis identified your dysthymia condition as Existed Prior to Entry 
indicating that you entered the Navy with the disability condition. Finally, the Board looked to 
your post-discharge employment as further indication that you were fit for active duty. Your 
ability to secure employment post-discharge was a strong indicator that you were fit at the time 
ofyour discharge. Your employm•;mt history shows that you currently work as a mortgage 
underwriter and bank manager. The Board determined your strong work performance, despite 
the existence ofa dysthymia condition, led to your successful post-discharge career in banking. 
This was persuasive evidence of fitness for duty that the Board considered in addition to the 
other evidence previously mentioned. Second, the Board decided that your characterization of 
service remains appropriate. Even after liberally considering the effect your dysthymia condition 
had on your misconduct, the Board felt it inappropriate to change your characterization of 
service. They examined the nature of your dysthymia condition and the fact it was a long term 
condition that apparently existed prior to your entry into the Navy. Despite your assertion that 
you suffered from a number of symptoms that led you to self-medicate, the Board could find.no 
evidence ofthese symptoms prior to you committing misconduct. There was no evidence you 
sought treatment for your mental health symptoms prior to being caught for misconduct and 
there was no corresponding decrease in performance near the time of your positive urinalysis. 
Therefore, the Board found no nexus between your dysthymia and your decision to use 
marijuana. Further, the Board found insufficient mitigation to warrant a change in your 
characterization of service based solely on the existence ofyour dysthymia condition. As a 
diagnosed long term mental health condition with no apparent effect on your performance except 
your single use ofmarijuana, the Board concluded your condition did not overcome the 
seriousness of your illegal drug use. The Board concluded the premeditated nature ofyour drug 
use was too serious to overlook and outweighed your claim that you were self-medicating based 
on depression related to concerns of nuclear tension and job stress. In the Board's opinion, your 
position as a medic for Marines placed you in a special position of responsibility over the health 
and welfare of Marines under your care. A responsibility you vacated when you chose to use 
marijuana.
 
All these factors led them to conclude, despite applying the liberal standard of 
consideration directed by the Under Secretary ofDefense for Personnel and Readiness 
memorandum of 25 August 2017, that the existence ofyour mental health condition at the time 
ofyour discharge did not warrant a change to your characterization of service or narrative reason 
for separation. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director