DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2111-19 3821-12 Ref: Signature Date MR Dear Mr. : This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 12 February 2019. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your application. Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 13 July 2020. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and all material submitted in support of your application. In addition, the Board considered the 26 February 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to you. 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. In your petition, you contend that you lacked criminal responsibility at the time that you committed the misconduct that led to your court-martial. You believe that had you been evaluated before, during, and after your court-martial, your lack of criminal responsibility would have been known. You presented as new evidence a Mental Health Progress Note dated 21 January 2014, from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections stating that you participated in the first group therapy session for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). You provided two clinical documents from ARISE Child and Family Services, one of which was for a psychiatric evaluation for PTSD. You also provided a character reference letter. Additionally, you contend that you witnessed two Marines get killed while in non-combative roles, witnessed an Airman get his hand cut off by the propellers of an E-2C Hawkeye, and many other incidents that you could not get over but, the above two have stuck with you most. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from PTSD 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 PTSD during your service. The AO concluded that although you provided evidence of a post-service diagnosis of PTSD, which can be partially attributed to your time in service, there has been no evidence presented establishing PTSD as a mitigating factor for your significant misconduct in-service. Therefore, the AO found that it is less likely than not that your misconduct occurred as a result of your PTSD. The Board concurred with the AO that it is less likely than not that your misconduct is mitigated by your PTSD. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that your statement and the evidence you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice in your record warranting an upgrade in the characterization of your service. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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, 9/8/2020 Executive Director