DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10614-19 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 limitation 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 2 February 1981. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 12 August 1982 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two separate specifications of failing to obey a lawful order by possessing marijuana. In August 1982 you were also were convicted of driving under the influence. Your driver’s license was suspended for one year and you paid a $500 fine. On 25 October 1982 you were issued a “Page 13” retention warning (Page 13). The Page 13 documented your NJP and expressly warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and processing for administrative separation. However, on 18 January 1984 you received NJP the wrongful use of marijuana. On 19 January 1984 you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. You expressly waived your rights to consult with counsel, submit a written statement, and to present your case to an administrative separation board. Ultimately, on 10 February 1984 you were separated from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 8 January 2021. The Ph.D. observed that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a PTSD diagnosis or psychological/behavioral changes indicating a mental health condition. The Ph.D. noted that throughout your disciplinary actions, counseling sessions, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. The Ph.D. noted that you have a current diagnosis of an anxiety disorder; however, the Ph.D. determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine the relationship between your post-service diagnosis and your in-service misconduct. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence to establish you suffered from any mental health conditions on active duty and that your misconduct was attributable to a service-connected 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 Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) you served in the Navy for over three years and your service, work ethic, and work evaluations were excellent and honorable, (b) the narrative reason for separation of drug abuse on you DD 214 is incorrect, (c) you were a stupid kid and made a mistake, and (d) you are an honorable man and would like to fix this transgression in your life. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, 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 nexus between any mental health conditions or mental health-related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related conditions or 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 did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious as to deserve a discharge upgrade and determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. 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. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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. 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