DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10655-19 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. 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 1 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 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, 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 15 January 2021, which was previously provided to you. On 6 April 1967, you reenlisted in the Navy after serving over 10 years of prior honorable service. On 28 August 1968, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 21 March 1969, you received NJP for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. On 20 November 1969, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 116 days of unauthorized absence (UA). You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade and confinement at hard labor. On 21 January 1970, you were notified of administrative discharge action due to your frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. However, you were informed that this action would be held in abeyance pending further review of your future conduct. On 12 May 1970, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of 10 days of UA. On 19 May 1970, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of unfitness due to your frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. It appears that after you were afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 25 May 1970, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that you be separated from the Navy due to your frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 9 June 1970, you were discharged from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. 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 were suffering from PTSD during your service. The AO noted that there is sufficient direct evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during your military service; however, the preponderance of available evidence fails to establish your in-service misconduct was mitigated by your 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 statement that after , your increasing stress caused schizophrenia at the time of your UA, and you were suffering from delusions of paranoid ideation, impaired insight and judgment, and an overwhelming compulsion for social withdrawal and isolation. However, 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 NJPs, SPCM conviction for very lengthy period of UA, and SCM conviction, after your initial administrative discharge action was held in abeyance to allow you opportunity for retention in the Navy, outweighed these mitigating factors. 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