Docket No: 2635-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 that 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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional dated 15 April 2020. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 20 July 1995. On 29 June 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey an order. On 1 July 1998, you received a second NJP for larceny and wrongful appropriation. Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain a copy of your notification of pending administrative separation action but review of your Commanding Officer’s (CO) recommendation notes the completed notification as an enclosure. According to your discharge documentation, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your CO recommended you be discharged by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that you be discharged by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 3 February 1999, you were so discharged. Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention you suffered from “mental depression” while in 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.” As part of the Board’s review, a mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 15 April 2020. The AO noted you did not submit evidence that you had a clinical diagnosis of a mental health condition or had experienced any mental health symptoms/conditions during your military service. The AO concluded there was insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The AO was provided to you on 15 April 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not respond within 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention you suffered from “excessive pain and mental depression” after knee surgery and turned to excessive alcohol use. Specifically, you contend alcohol use led to involvement with the “wrong civilian group” which resulted in you stealing money to “feed your addiction.” The Board also considered your contention that you “bounced from job to job and seemed to spiral out of control in a self-destructive manner” after separation from the Navy until you “hit rock bottom.” You further contend your life is now “in order” and you are blessed with a loving wife, two beautiful children, and a “full life.” The Board also considered the advocacy letters submitted on your behalf. The Board concurred with the AO’s determination there was insufficient evidence in the record, and noted that you submitted none, to attribute your misconduct to a mental health condition. The Board determined additional post-service records describing your mental health diagnosis and its specific link to your military misconduct were required. In the end, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to establish an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to 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, 7/9/2020