DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 2078-19 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 10 July 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 23 February 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 13 September 1990. During the period from 20 December 1991 to 23 February 1993, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for unauthorized absence, failure to obey an order or regulation, insubordinate conduct, larceny of government property, and altering an armed forces identification card. Additionally, you were formally counseled on two occasions and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 8 March 1993, medical personnel found you to be alcohol dependent and recommended that you attend Level II alcohol rehabilitation treatment, which you completed and commenced a one-year after care program. You were warned that failure to comply with your plan could result in separation from the Navy. On 31 August 1993, you were diagnosed with a Personality Disorder that existed prior to your entry onto active duty, with borderline and narcissistic traits, complicated by ethyl alcohol. At that time, it was recommended that you attend a Level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment program via a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital after your discharge from the Navy. Further, you were found to be a risk to yourself or others if retained on active duty. On 3 September 1993, you received NJP for disobeying a petty officer and using provoking speech and gestures. Additionally, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the Navy for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, alcohol rehabilitation failure and convenience of the government due to a personality disorder. After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. Your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable discharge. On 27 September 1993, the separation authority directed that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 19 October 1993, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH 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.” In your personal statement, you contended an upgrade is warranted as you felt “I was never considered for a medical discharge for my mental handicap of my severe mental illness” and that “my mental illness was properly diagnosed yet not acknowledged or even considered by my command.” 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. The AO noted that in your enlistment physical examination, you denied any history of substance abuse or mental health conditions. Your in-service medical and personnel records document mental health symptoms to include depression and anxiety, substance abuse, and occupational dissatisfaction in the context of your diagnoses of a Personality Disorder, NOS with Borderline and Narcissistic Traits and Alcohol Dependence. You provided clinical notes from an outpatient psychiatric session which showed treatment for the diagnosis of a Borderline Personality Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, in partial remission. You did not provide any other clinical records or evidence. Your personality disorder diagnosis pre-existed your enlistment as you admitted to a life-long pattern of emotional lability and behaviors consistent with your personality disorder diagnosis and did not arise as a result of your military service. Your alcohol use disorder arose during your military service, but it would be a stretch to attribute its origin to military service. In either case, you were consistently found responsible for your actions and fit for full duty. There were no in-service or post-service evidence attributing your mental health conditions to your misconduct. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it was opined that the evidence you presented does not support the attribution of a mental health condition as a mitigating factor to your range of in-service misconduct. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, and desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered your assertions that you felt you were never considered for a medical discharge; your mental illness was properly diagnosed, yet not acknowledged or even considered by your command; there was no medication or therapy; you were released to your command and judged for your dysfunctionality; and that your pattern of reckless impulsive behavior was a symptom of your disease, but an OTH discharge was issued. 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 four NJPs, especially given the fact that you were counseled and warned of the consequences of further misconduct on more than one occasion. Additionally, the fact you were processed for separation due to misconduct meant that any other separation processing, including for medical, was superseded. Therefore, even if the Board had found that sufficient evidence exists to find you unfit for a medical condition, you still would not have warranted consideration because of your misconduct. Further, the Board concurred with the AO that the evidence you presented does not support the attribution of a mental health condition as a mitigating factor to your range of in-service 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 injustice.