DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10527-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This 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 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 8 March 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 the 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 11 January 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24 February 1999. On 25 February 1999, you were, notified that you were being retained in the Navy despite your fraudulent induction, as you failed to disclose your pre-service involvement with civil authorities. On 7 November 2000, you were, convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA), two specifications of missing ship’s movement, and drunkenness. On 15 November 2000, you were counseled concerning misconduct and warned that further deficiencies could result in administrative discharge action. On 13 March 2001 and 28 August 2001, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of disorderly conduct, three specifications of drunkenness, and assault consummated by a battery. Additionally, you were counseled and issued a retention warning that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 26 November 2001, you were briefed regarding the fact that your command would discipline, as appropriate, and process for administrative separation, those members whose alcohol-related misconduct was severe, who were repeat offenders or who did not respond favorably to treatment. Additionally, that those who incur alcohol related incidents after receiving treatment were subject to administrative discharge action. On 15 December 2001, you began a period of UA that lasted 71 days, ending on 23 February 2002. On 19 April 2002, you were, convicted by SCM of 71 days of UA, and missing movement. You were, sentenced to 30 days confinement and a reduction in paygrade. On 13 August 2002, you were notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 17 September 2002, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for misconduct. On 18 September 2002, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge from the Navy. On 25 October 2002, you were, discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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" memorandum of 25 August 2017. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during your service. The AO noted that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish that you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health condition. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to your contentions that: (a) you served your country during wartime with dignity, as a result of drinking in the military off duty, you were given an OTH discharge, and that you deserve a general discharge; and (b) as a result of drinking in the military, you suffer from depression, anxiety, and addiction, along with PTSD and sleep apnea. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your two SCMs and two NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct, outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health condition. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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