Docket No: 11433-20 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 April 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 the 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 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 1 February 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 21 June 2006. On 6 June 2003, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for contempt or disrespect toward a Chief Petty Officer, failure to obey an order, resisting apprehension, and assault upon a person in the execution of law enforcement. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 9 June 2003, you were counseled concerning your first NJP and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 14 August 2003, you received NJP for three specification of unauthorized absence (UA). On 11 September 2003, you received NJP for UA, missing ship’s movement, and breaking restriction. On 16 September 2003, medical personnel diagnosed you with Alcohol Dependence and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and you were recommended for an administrative discharge based on a long standing disorder of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy. Although you were not imminently suicidal or homicidal, you were determined to be a risk to harm yourself or others. On 5 October 2003, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of a personality disorder, a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 22 October 2003, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 4 November 2003, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. 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 a mental health condition during your service. The AO noted that based on the available evidence, although you have a post-discharge diagnoses of Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and PTSD, the preponderance of available evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with Depression, Bipolar Disorder, or PTSD or suffered from these mental health conditions at the time of your military service. Further, the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to support that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. 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 that: (a) you were misdiagnosed with a Personality Disorder, and that misdiagnosis prevented you from receiving the proper medical care; (b) you felt mentally unable to focus on your job and everyday tasks, you tried to talk to your unit for help before it got serious, and went UA because your mother was diagnosed with Terminal Lung Cancer; (c) you were, told you would receive a general discharge and mental health help; and (d) after your discharge, you joined the Army National Guard, received an honorable discharge and attended community college for TV Production. Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJPs, and the fact that you were counseled and warned on more than one occasion, of the consequences of further misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to support that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. 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, 4/27/2021 Executive Director