DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1851-19 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. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 2020. The names and votes of the members of the panel 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the 6 January 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 19 June 1984. On 2 July 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for six days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 9 April 1987, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 105 days of UA. You were sentenced to a period of confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction in paygrade. On 22 April 1987, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the Navy for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 11 May 1987, your case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you be discharged due to misconduct. On 31 July 1987, the separation authority concurred and directed your discharge from the Navy. On 13 August 1987, you were discharged from the Navy with and an other than honorable characterization of service. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” the 25 August 2017 memorandum, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards 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,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.” A Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition. A review of available service records revealed a 3 March 1987, sick call note that you wanted out of the Navy due to longstanding discontent back to your enlistment. You had returned from a 90-day UA period and did not want to serve out the remaining two years of your enlistment. You desired to obtain a “good discharge.” The sick call corpsman who evaluated you made a tentative diagnosis of “Immature Personality Disorder” and referred you to a senior medical officer. On 6 March 1987, you were evaluated and you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation, though he noted he did not “foresee any disqualifying conditions.” There is no record in the medical chart of a psychiatric evaluation following the consult referral. On your Separation Physical Examination, you endorsed occasional insomnia and “depression with being on the ship.” Otherwise, you denied any other psychological symptoms or conditions and stated you were in “good health” at discharge. You were deemed medically qualified for separation without recommendations for follow-on care. Unfortunately, you submitted no information that you had a clinical diagnosis of any mental health conditions as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Thus, the AO concluded that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board considered your assertions that you were young at the time and did not realize that it would affect your discharge. You assert that you saw a psychiatrist while in the military. Additionally, the Board considered your assertions that you had some procedural issues, you had stopped smoking marijuana 30 days prior to entering the Navy, you regretted moving to the east coast, you were unhappy and requested psychological help with your feelings, and you have led a good life out of the Navy and have done a lot of public service. The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant an upgrade in the characterization of your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in NJP and a SPCM conviction for a very serious offense. Further, the Board concurred with the AO that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 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 Sincerely,