Docket No:  2625-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
MR
 
 
Dear Mr.  
 
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 28 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 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 23 April 2020, which was previously provided to you. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 2 September 1964.  On 19 March and 19 March 1965, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized phone use and failure to go to your appointed place of duty.  On 10 June 1965, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of failing to obey a lawful order.  On 4 August 1965, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 11 days of unauthorized absence, making a false official statement, and failure to obey a lawful regulation.  On 3 January 1967, you were convicted by SCM of wrongful appropriation of property belonging to another Sailor, and failing to go to restricted musters.  On 1 February 1967, you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful regulation.  On 21 February 1967, you were counseled concerning your deficiencies in conduct and warned that further deficiencies could result in administrative discharge.  On 7 August 1967, you received NJP for failing to obey a lawful order.   
 
On 9 August 1967, you were informed that you were being recommended for administrative discharge by reason of unfitness.  On 11 August 1967, you acknowledged that you were being considered for administrative discharge which could be under other than honorable (OTH) conditions due to repeated military offenses and admitted use of LSD and hallucinogens.  You further acknowledged that you were afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, and waived all of your privileges, including your privileges to be represented by counsel and to appear before a Board.  On 16 August 1967, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.  On 26 September 1967, you signed a sworn statement concerning your alleged use of narcotics, marijuana and dangerous drugs.  On 27 October 1967, the separation authority directed that you receive an undesirable discharge due to unfitness.  On 9 November 1967, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis of your contention 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.” 
 
A qualified mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO.  The mental health professional reviewed your contentions in conjunction with your medical records in order to evaluate your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition.  However, based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of an in-service mental health condition to which your misconduct could be attributed. 
 
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 your discharge “assumes some sort of dishonor by inference, and not addressing a specific item or the true reason that may be in play, which cause those items of concern to begin with.”  The Board ultimately concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs, SCM convictions, and an SPCM conviction, and the fact that you were also warned of the consequences of additional misconduct.  Further, the Board concurred with the AO in that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of an in-service mental health condition to which your misconduct could be attributed. 
 
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,