Docket No: 2260-19 
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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 29 October 1954.  In 1960 and 1962, you had three minor nonjudicial punishments for an unauthorized offense and orders violations.  Your career was otherwise free of discipline until 16 May 1978, when you were found guilty by a general court-martial for attempted larceny, false statements, and larceny.  Your sentence, as ultimately approved by the convening authority, was two years confinement, reduction in rate to E-5, forfeiture of all pay and allowance for two years, and a bad conduct discharge.  Your bad conduct discharge was executed on 24 June 1981. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions and all potentially mitigating factors, including that you contend that you believe you had post traumatic stress disoder (PTSD) from your service in , which mitigated your misconduct.  Your contention that you suffered from PTSD 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 furtherance thereof, the Board requested an AO on your case to evaluate your claim.  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, 
 
Petitioner has submitted two brief notes from physicians stating he is under treatment for PTSD from the  War, but no clinical details of symptoms, behavioral effects, or possible relationship to his significant in-service misconduct.  Petitioner’s misconduct occurred approximately a decade after his  tours with no evidence in the intervening time of a mental health condition.  Additionally, the nature of the misconduct appeared complex, goal oriented, consciously planned out, and executed over a period of time.  Given Petitioner’s acceptable service up to the time of his misconduct and court-martial, it is difficult to attribute his conspiratorial misconduct to a mental health condition.  Additional information, such as personal statements providing some account of his PTSD and its effects on his behavior, or personnel or medical records documenting changes in the Petitioner’s mental state or associated behaviors leading up 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, “[d]espite the existing post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD attributed to Petitioner’s military service (rendered 36 years after discharge from service), based on the available evidence, it is my considered opinion that it is less likely than not that Petitioner’s misconduct is attributable to his diagnosis of PTSD. 
 
After careful consideration 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. 
 
                                          Sincerely,