Docket No: 11620-19 
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 24 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 2 February 2021, which was previously provided to you.   
 
You entered a period of active duty in the Navy on 10 May 1989.   On 20 September 1989 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA), underage drinking, and breach of the peace by fighting.  On 29 January 1990 you received a second NJP for two specifications of UA.  You received a third NJP on 17 April 1990 for willful disobedience and disrespect to a Petty Officer.  You received notification of administrative separation processing on 3 May 1990 and you exercised your right to consult with counsel, waived an administrative board, and did not object to the separation.  Your commanding officer recommended your discharge with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service and you were so discharged on 15 May 1990. 
 
You petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) on 19 June 1992 and were denied relief.  You contended that you never committed a serious offense, the reason for separation was your own psychological discomfort of the Navy, and youth and immaturity impaired your ability to serve.  In your current application to the Board, you contend your narrative reason for separation does not describe an offense, there was no serious offense, and lack of military bearing is more accurate.  Your further state you suffered from mental health issues due to being racially stereotyped and overlooked. 
  
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 and noted you did not provide any evidence of an in-service or post-service mental health condition.  Additionally, there is no indication in your service record, or application, that you experienced a primary or secondary trauma while in-service.  Finally, the Board noted you did not provide any post-service documentation or advocacy letters in support of your request for an upgraded characterization of service.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief, and 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.   
 
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,