Docket No: 11714-19            
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 
3 February 2021 Advisory Opinion (AO) from a mental health professional. 
 
You enlisted in the in the Navy on 4 January 1988.  You completed your initial training and you were released to the Navy Reserve on 4 June 1988.  On 25 October 1990, after several unexcused absences from required drills, you were issued a notice of reestablishment of your drill documentation.  This document gave you a fresh start for maintaining your obligation to the Navy Reserve.  On 1 December 1990, you signed a written counseling explaining your requirements for participation the Navy Reserve.  You had indicated that you did not want to work in the Hospital Corpsman field, and you were provided the opportunity to change your rating, but you did not report to your unit Command Career Counselor as you were directed.  On 19 July 1991, you were notified that you were being administratively processed for discharge, and you were provided your rights in connection therewith.  You waived your right to an administrative discharge board.  On 4 September 1991, your commanding officer recommended your discharge, and on 22 September 1991, you were discharged with an other than honorable 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 suffered from anxiety, depression, and PTSD in 2019, and 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 support of your contention, you provided a report of a medical provider dated 9 September 2019, who diagnosed you with chronic PTSD, major depression, and obsessive compulsive personality disorder.  In connection with your contentions, the Board sought, and reviewed, the 3 February 2021 AO, which found as follows: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records do contain evidence of psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Petitioner was subsequently evaluated by mental health. Based on the information she disclosed to the provider, a recommendation of administrative discharge or cross-training was provided.  There was no indication, or noted complaints, of other mental health concerns.  The USN elected to cross-train and Petitioner did not follow through with the recommendation and decided to stop participating in drills, resulting in her discharge.  Additional information, such as medical records containing description of symptoms and linked to her military service/misconduct would aid in rendering an alternative opinion.  
 
The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion, although Petitioner carries various post-discharge mental health conditions, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish Petitioner suffered from the mental health conditions at the time of her military service, or her misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” 
 
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,