Docket No: 11162-19 
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 limitations 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 17 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).  The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 1 February 2021, which was previously provided to you.   
 
You entered a period of active duty in the Navy on 19 June 1991.  On 25 August 1992 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for Articles 92 and 113, dereliction in the performance of duties and sleeping on watch.  You received a second NJP on 4 November 1992 for Article 134, drunk and disorderly conduct.  On 9 November 1992 you received an outpatient psychiatric evaluation and were diagnosed with Personality Disorder, NOS, with dependent and paranoid features at which time your treating psychiatrist recommended your expeditious administrative separation processing.  On 14 December 1992 you were notified of administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder.  The Commanding Officer of the Transient Personnel Unit recommended that you be separated with an under other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and on 13 January 1993 you were so discharged.   
 
In your application, you contend that you were 19-years-old at the time of your discharge, had never been away from your parents before, and suffered from psychological problems and alcohol abuse.  You further state that you made mistakes and did not understand the discharge process.  You contend that your mental capabilities were not considered, the psychiatrist did not completely consider the recommendations in the outpatient psychiatric evaluation, you were not mentally competent, and you were encouraged to sign the processing documentation if you wanted out of the Navy.  You also state that you have struggled for years to find employment to support yourself and have no veterans’ benefits. 
  
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 contentions noted above and desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board also relied on the AO in making its determination.  The Board noted that the AO concluded that your in-service personnel and medical records revealed a diagnosis of Personality Disorder, but no evidence that you exhibited any additional mental health symptoms or conditions during your military service.  Further, the AO noted that throughout your military service, medical evaluation for substance abuse, outpatient psychiatric evaluation, discharge from service physical examination, and disciplinary actions/administrative processing, there were no additional indications of additional mental health symptoms or conditions warranting additional mental health referrals.  Additionally, the Board noted that you did not submit any evidence of diagnosed post-discharge mental health conditions nor advocacy letters for consideration.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.  Additionally, whether or not an individual is entitled to veterans’ benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and you may contact the nearest office of the VA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If benefits have been denied, you may be able to appeal the denial under procedures established by the VA.  
 
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,