Docket No: 2764-19 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. 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and the relevant Advisory Opinion (AO). You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 28 May 1975. You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 25 September 1975, for three specifications of absence from your appointed place of duty. Your service record indicates you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) on 2 October 1975, and were subsequently declared a deserter on 3 November 1975. You returned to military control and were evaluated by medical on 1 December 1975. Your medical records indicate that you could not adjust to military life, and displayed tension and uncontrollable emotional spells. Medical notes state an impression of immature personality, chronic, existing prior to entry. In January 1976, you again embarked on a period of UA, which terminated with your surrender. On 6 June 1976, you were apprehended by civilian authorities in Baton Rouge, LA for failing to maintain control of a vehicle and driving with a revoked license; you were confined in a city jail until 11 June 1976. Administrative separation proceedings were initiated; on 23 July 1976, you acknowledged that you had been advised and understood that an undesirable discharge would bar you from virtually all benefits under the laws administered by Veterans Affairs. You were discharged from the Navy on 23 July 1976, and received an other than honorable characterization of service. In your petition to the Board, you request an upgrade to your discharge characterization from “undesirable” to “under honorable conditions.” You state that you served the military for one year and were a leader until mental reasons interfered. You assert that you need mental health assistance. Your request 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. As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed your request, and issued an AO dated 20 April 2020. The AO noted that you were diagnosed with Immature Personality during your military service and were appropriately recommended for expeditious administrative discharge. The AO also considered that you submitted no additional evidence of any other mental health condition or linkage to your in-service misconduct. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence of any mental health condition attributable to your military service that would have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered your claim of suffering from mental health issues during your time in the Navy and your statement regarding a need for mental health care now. The Board, however, noted that your mental health conditions were documented in your December 1975 records as “EPTE,” and that you did not provide additional mental health records which establish that you suffered from a mental health condition that made you unaccountable for your misconduct or mitigated your misbehavior. The Board concurred with the AO and determined that based on the available evidence, there is insufficient information to establish that your misconduct was mitigated by a qualifying mental health condition. The Board found that the nature of your misconduct, which included frequent periods of UA and civilian vehicle infractions, supported the issuance of the other than honorable discharge. The Board found that your discharge was issued without error or injustice, and does not merit corrective action. 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 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,