DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10478-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitations was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). You enlisted in the Navy on 13 July 1971. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 13 December 1971 you were dropped from Boilerman “A” School. On 17 February 1972 you were convicted at a Summary Court-Martial of unauthorized absence (UA) lasting twenty-three days. On 19 December 1972 you commenced a period of UA that terminated after 177 days with your surrender on 14 June 1973. At some point during your UA you filed an unofficial hardship discharge request so you could take care of your mother. On 30 July 1973 you submitted a voluntary written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for your lengthy UA. Prior to submitting this voluntary discharge request you would have conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. As a result of this course of action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction for your long-term UA, as well as the potential sentence of confinement and the negative ramifications of receiving a punitive discharge from a military judge. In the interim, on 1 August 1973 you underwent a psychiatric evaluation. The Medical Officer diagnosed you with a passive-dependent personality and recommended your administrative separation. Ultimately, on 28 August 1973 you were separated from the Navy with an OTH discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. On 13 May 1975 the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that your discharge characterization was proper as issued and no change was warranted. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 12 January 2021. The MD noted that your in-service records contained evidence of being diagnosed with a personality disorder but no other mental health conditions, and the MD determined that your records failed to reveal any evidence indicating any additional mental health symptoms or conditions. The MD observed that during your separation physical that the Medical Officer noted your passive-dependent personality diagnosis, but did not identify any additional mental health symptoms or conditions and deemed you medically qualified for separation. The MD further noted that you did not submit any post-service clinical documentation of any diagnosed mental health conditions. The MD determined that there was no evidence to either support your mental health claim, or link your purported mental health condition to your military service or misconduct. The MD concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence you incurred a service-connected mental health condition that might mitigate your misconduct. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to your contentions that: (a) in 1973 you were given the news of your mother’s terminal illness while going through a divorce with your first wife; (b) by the age of 21 you had already experienced mental health instability battling anxiety and depression; (c) the stress of your mother’s illness and divorce led you to walk away from the Navy; (d) you even went to the extreme of shooting yourself in the foot; (e) you were a stellar Sailor until you went UA; and (f) you are still battling anxiety and depression today. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded that there was no convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms. The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions. The Board determined that personality disorders are characterized by a longstanding pattern of unhealthy behaviors, dysfunctional relationships, and maladaptive thinking patterns. They are not conditions considered unfitting or disabling, but render service members unsuitable for military service and consideration for administrative separation. Accordingly, the Board concluded that your personality disorder was a non-disabling disorder of character and behavior, and that it should not be considered a mitigating factor in your misconduct because it did not impair your ability to be accountable for your actions or behaviors. Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages, which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average in conduct was 2.75. Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious misconduct which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge. The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Sailor. Absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments. However, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH, and that your separation was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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, Executive Director