DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1046-19 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 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, 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). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to you. During the accession process, you admitted to being a marijuana user. On 15 November 1985, you completed a substance abuse examination for at which you were cleared to join the military. On 27 November 1985, you began active service. During the period from 3 December 1985 to 16 May 1987, you were counseled five times for the following offenses: drug and alcohol abuse, sitting during watch, poor performance, sleeping during watch, and failure to report. On 22 August 1987, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which lasted ninety-seven days. On 31 August 1987, you missed the sailing of the USS . On 31 January 1988, you declined to acknowledge and sign the derogatory content entries on your enlisted evaluation report. On 23 March 1988, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for UA and missing ship movement. On 6 September 1988, you tested positive for marijuana. On 21 September 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for derelection of duty, wrongful use of marijuana, and sleeping on watch. On 28 September, you tested positive for use of marijuana. On 9 October 1988, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for disobeying a lawful order, possession of drug paraphernalia, wrongful use, possession, and introduce of marijuana. On 14 October 1988, you commanding officer (CO) recommended that you receive an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct-drug abuse. On 29 November 1988, you received an additional NJP for wrongful use and possession of marijuana, and urinating in public. On 2 December 1988, you were referred to a naval psychiatric department for expressing dissatisfaction with continued service and vague suicidal ideation. Subsequently, you were diagnosed with cannabis dependence and personality disorder. On the same date, the medical officer recommended the expedition of your discharge. On 9 December 1988, you were discharged. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 23 January 2021. The AO stated that based on the available objective evidence, it was the considered medical opinion that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition at the time of your enlistment attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was mailed to you on 26 January 2021 and you were given 30 days in which to respond. When you did not respond after 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review. 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 contention that you began suffering from depression and severe anxiety after your grandmother passed away. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJPs, SPCM, and SCM, outweighed these mitigating factors. The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you suffered from depression and severe anxiety after your grandmother passed away. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge. The Board, relying on the AO and applying liberal consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. Further, the Board noted you did not provide documentation or advocacy letters for consideration and concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading your character of service based on clemency. 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,