Docket No: 10945-19            
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 22 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, including 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 also requested and reviewed a 23 January 2021 Advisory Opinion (AO) from a mental health professional. 
 
You enlisted in the in the Navy on 9 Aug 1989.  At the time you enlisted, you had two waivers for alcohol-related offenses that you disclosed.  On 7 September 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your place of duty on two occasions, disrespect on four occasions, twice failing to obey an order, assault, and being drunk and disorderly.  On 5 Apr 1991, and again on 26 April 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to your place of duty ten different times.  On 2 May 1991, you were issued a written warning on your persistent failures to go to your place of duty.  On 6 September 1991, you received NJP for unauthorized absence and communicating a threat.  You received NJP two more times, which involved alcohol incidents.  Specifically, on 13 September 1991, you received NJP for driving under the influence and reckless driving, as well as contempt toward a noncommissioned officer, provoking gestures, and resisting apprehension.  Finally, on 28 October 1991, you received NJP for driving while impaired, damaging another vehicle, and unauthorized absence.  You were medically screened on 17 October 1991, and it was determined you were dependent on alcohol.   
 
On 18 October 1991, you were notified that you were being processed for administrative separation, and your rights in connection therewith.  You elected to have an administrative discharge board.  Your board was held on 4 November 1991, and the board found that you committed a pattern of misconduct, that you should be discharged, and that your characterization of service should be other than honorable (OTH).  On 12 November 1991, your commanding officer recommended that your discharge with an OTH characterization of service, and on 9 December 1991, the Bureau of Naval Personnel directed your discharge and that you be offered 30 days of inpatient alcohol treatment at a Department of Veterans Affairs’ facility.  On 13 December 1991, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Hagel and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to, your contention that you had a general pattern of misconduct, but none of your individual offenses were serious.  You further stated that you had a drinking problem that stemmed from PTSD that was caused by your participation in Operation Desert Storm.  You explained that at the time, drinking was glorified, but now that you are out of the Navy, you no longer drink.  Thus, you believe that your service in the Navy exacerbated your conditions, and thus these diagnoses should mitigate your misconduct that resulted in your negative characterization of service.  In connection with your contentions, the Board sought, and reviewed, the 23 January 2021 AO, which found as follows: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records do contain evidence of diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence, Bereavement, and Dependent Personality Traits and in-service outpatient and inpatient psychiatric care for the above diagnoses, including Level III Inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation. 
 
Throughout his military service, disciplinary actions, counseling, psychiatric and substance abuse evaluations and treatment to include direct observation on psychiatric and alcohol rehabilitation inpatient wards, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted of any indications of additional mental health conditions, to include PTSD, which would have warranted additional referral to mental health resources. Petitioner underwent a separation physical examination, in which the Petitioner and examining physicians did not report any mental health symptoms or conditions and deemed him medically qualified for separation.  Petitioner has submitted no information that he had a post-discharge clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Additional information, such as medical records containing a diagnosis of a mental health condition associated with his military service and linked to his military misconduct is required to render an alternate opinion.  Should the Petitioner choose to submit additional clinical information, it will be reviewed in the context of his claims. 
 
The AO concluded, “at this time, based on the available evidence, it is my considered clinical opinion that there is insufficient evidence Petitioner incurred PTSD as a result of his military service that may have mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct.” 
 
Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief.  The Board found the AO to be persuasive.  Accordingly, based on all of the facts and circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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,