Docket No: 2643-19 
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 15 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 3 December 1986.  On 23 April 1988 and 13 May 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absences and failures to obey orders.  You were processed for administrative separation, and you attended an administrative discharge board on 23 May 1988.  The administrative discharge board recommended that you be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  While waiting to be discharged, you again received nonjudicial punishment for leaving your appointed place of duty and disobeying orders.  You were again notified of the initiation of administrative discharge proceedings, and you waived your right to an administrative discharge board.  Your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service.  On 30 August 1988, you were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions and all potentially mitigating factors, including that you have been treated for ADHD/Bipolar and generalized depression, which you believe was a lifetime issue.  Your contentions 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.  The medical doctor also provided a supplemental AO.  According to the supplemental AO, 
 
Documents provided by Petitioner provide corroborating evidence of Petitioner’s claim of post-discharge mental health diagnoses, which were clarified as Bipolar Disorder Type II, PTSD, ADHD, and Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Notably, these diagnoses were made over thirty years after his separation from military service.  Though a mental health provider has opined Petitioner’s PTSD resulted from trauma he experienced in service, the traumas described as “fear of death secondary to ship maneuvering” and “extensive bullying and public ridicule,” has significantly less probative value with regard to his in-service mental health condition than mental health evaluations made at the time of his military service. 
 
Additionally, there was minimal clinical history provided to link these post-discharge diagnoses to his in-service misconduct in more than a speculative manner.  Therefore, based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion that there is sufficient direct evidence that Petitioner was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder during his military service.  However, there is insufficient evidence to attribute his misconduct to these mental health conditions. 
 
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,