DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2172-19 Ref: Signature date Dear : This letter 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 with respect to your request to upgrade your characterization of service 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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. The Board also requested, and considered, an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a medical doctor. You enlisted in the Navy on 10 November 1982. On 26 September 1984, you receceived nonjudicial punishment for possession of marijuana. On 28 November 1984, you refused Level III drug rehabilitation treatment. Next, on 16 January 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment again, for unauthorized absence, possession of a deadly weapon, and possession of marijuana. On 18 January 1985, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and you waived your right to an administrative discharge board. You were discharged on 22 February 1985, with an other than honorable characterization of service. The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions and all potentially mitigating factors, including that you contend that you believe you only used marijuana to deal with military stress. Your contention that you suffered from military stress was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 and the “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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,” memorandum of 25 August 2017. In connection therewith, the Board requested an AO to evaluate your claim. You did not submit any additional material, and the AO was based on the review of all available records. You have previously been provided a copy of the AO. According to the AO, Unfortunately, the Petitioner has submitted no information that he has a clinical diagnosis of any mental health conditions as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Additional information, such as medical records containing a diagnosis of a mental health condition associated with his military service and linked to his military misconduct is required to render an alternate opinion. Should the Petitioner choose to submit additional clinical information, it will be reviewed in the context of his claims. The AO concluded by stating that, “based on the available evidence, it is my considered opinion that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to Petitioner’s military service that may have mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct.” The Board also considered your assertion that you were told that your discharge characterization would be upgraded after six months. The Board noted that there is no law or regulation that provides for an automatic upgrade of characterization of service. Accordingly, after careful consideration of all of your contentions, including the AO described above, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. 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.