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 your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in .On non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for wrongful use of marijuana. You were medically cleared for separation on before your discharge for misconduct on with an Other than Honorable characterization of service. Post-discharge, you assert that you worked successfully in the oil and gas industry and have since transitioned to become a private investigator. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability and an upgrade to your characterization of service. You state that you experienced several traumatic events including witnessing injuries to your friend onboard USS Independence and involvement in firefighting. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board concluded you were ineligible for disability processing based on your misconduct processing for wrongful drug abuse. Disability regulations direct that misconduct processing shall superseded disability processing. So even if there was evidence that you were symptomatic for a qualifying disability condition and unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating, the Board concluded the Navy appropriately separated you for misconduct instead of processing you for a disability condition. Second, the Board found no evidence of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis or mental health diagnosis in your record or application. Based on the lack of a diagnosis, the Board also concluded there was no medical basis for your referral to the Disability Evaluation System or applying liberal consideration in your case. So despite your assertion that you suffer from PTSD as a result of your traumatic experiences in the Navy, the Board found no evidence the Navy acted inappropriately by not referring you to the Disability Evaluation System. Third, the Board considered your assertion that you successfully transitioned to work in the oil and gas industry after your discharge and eventually earned a “Director” position in the industry. In the Board’s opinion, this was further evidence that you were fit for active duty upon your discharge from the Navy. Your ability to perform well enough to earn a leadership position in the oil and gas industry convinced them there was insufficient evidence to find you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge from the Navy. They concluded that you would have been able to continue your Navy career but for your drug abuse misconduct that formed the basis for your administrative separation. Finally, the Board considered whether an upgrade to your characterization of service was merited based on the circumstances of your case. In the end, they concluded the preponderance of the evidence supports your current characterization of service. They noted you were only in the Navy less than three years before you committed a drug related offense resulting in your administrative separation. Further, the Board examined the substance abuse dependency screening report in which you stated that you used marijuana during a Spring Break party because you were intoxicated. Finally, the Board considered that you admitted to preservice marijuana use despite failing to disclose it during your enlistment process. Taking the evidence as a whole, the Board concluded you were involved in conduct involving one or more acts of omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of Naval Service. Specifically, your drug abuse was considered significant misconduct based on the punitive discharge authorized for wrongful use of a controlled substance under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When balanced against your brief active duty record and post- discharge record, the Board felt insufficient mitigation exists to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct you committed. Accordingly, they determined insufficient evidence of error or injustice exists to warrant a change to your record. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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 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.