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 5 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, 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).    
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 1 November 1976.  Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  After just over six months of active duty service, on 4 May 1977 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated after 1092 days on 30 April 1980 with your arrest by civilian authorities in , .   
 
On 16 June 1980 you submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under an other than honorable (OTH) conditions 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 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.  In the interim, on 23 June 1980 the Medical Officer for your separation physical examination noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  Ultimately, on 2 July 1980 you were separated from the Navy with an OTH discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.     
 
As part of the review process, the Board’s 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 26 January 2021.  The MD initially observed that your in-service records did not reveal any evidence of psychological symptoms or behavioral changes indicating any mental health conditions.  The MD noted that the examining physician on your separation physical did not report any mental health conditions and deemed you fit for separation from active duty without additional consultations or recommendations.  The MD also noted that your post-discharge clinical records documenting an adjustment disorder diagnosis occurred in the context of recurrent medical conditions, including lung cancer, without any history linking your psychiatric diagnoses to your military service or misconduct.  The MD concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence you were either diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, or that your misconduct was attributable to a 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 Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to:  (a) your mental health issues started in-service and were the cause of your misconduct, (b) the evidence shows that the misconduct caused by your mental health issues and leading to your discharge was minor in nature, (c) you have demonstrated a chronic post-service mental health issue, (d) you began to act out after your grandfather passed away and you were diagnosed with anxiety a year or two after he died, and (e) your medical expert determined that the cause of the misconduct leading to your discharge was due to a mental health condition.  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 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.  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,