Docket No:  2793-19 
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.     
  
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
A three-member panel of the BCNR, 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 20 April 2020, which was previously provided to you. 
  
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 28 November 1989.  On 4 October 1990, you were, convicted by civil authorities of third degree theft.  You were, sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 89 days suspended, and a fine.  On 18 October 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for attempting to steal a pair of flight boots, and making false official statements.  On 28 February 1992, you received NJP for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling 12 days, and failure to go to your appointed place of duty.  Administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the Navy due to misconduct.  After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 5 March 1992, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 13 March 1992, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  However, on 24 April 1992, your commanding officer requested that your administrative separation from the Navy be held in abeyance pending your trail by court-martial for drug related offenses.  On 3 June 1992, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of wrongful possession of about 13 hits of LSD, two specification of  distribution of LSD, possession of LSD onboard ship with intent to distribute, and breaking restriction.  You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade, a forfeiture of pay, confinement, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  You received your BCD on 16 November 1993.  
  
You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during your military service.  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. 
 
A qualified mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from PTSD during your service.  The AO noted in your personal statement, you contended the upgrade was warranted as you felt “extraordinary stress and pressure” as a Sailor working below decks during Operation Desert Storm/Shield” compounded by the death of your father.  You stated, “I went into a tailspin that I could not recover from and with the despair, self-medicated.” A review of available service records revealed an enlistment physical examination in which you described yourself in “good health” and denied any history of substance abuse or mental health conditions.  In your separation physical examination, you endorsed “depression or excessive worry” explaining you felt depressed after the death of your father.  This was not considered a disqualifying condition.  You denied any additional mental health symptoms or conditions, and none were any noted by the examining physician.  You were found medically qualified for separation without further need of consults or treatment recommendations.   
 
As indicated in the AO, on 9 November 1990, you underwent a CAAC screening for alcohol abuse and were diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse.  You were recommended for the Level II Outpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.  On 25 June 1992, you underwent a psychiatric evaluation after your conviction by SPCM and pending BCD.  It was noted that you had completed Level I and II Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation programs.  You were, diagnosed as “No Significant Psychopathology” and returned to full duty with the clinical entry “No psychological contraindication to separation as his command may desire.”  On 2 July 1992, you were, medically evaluated for Alcohol Abuse and diagnosed with Alcoholism.  You were, returned to duty and recommended for “Separation from the Navy via VA Rehabilitation if amenable.” The remainder of your in-service health record contained routine sick call entries but indications of mental health symptoms or conditions.   
 
The AO also notes that you did not present any additional medical records or evidence.  Your in-service medical record contains the diagnoses of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, but no other evidence of mental health symptoms or conditions.  There was no evidence provided that supports your contention  that you have a clinical diagnosis of PTSD or any other mental health conditions as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Additional information, such as medical records containing a diagnosis of a mental health condition associated with your military service and linked to your military misconduct is required to render an alternate opinion. Should you choose to submit additional clinical information, it will be reviewed in the context of your claims.  Therefore, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence of PTSD or any other mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. 
 
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 the military has learned from its past mistakes and it is there to help those in need, and you just wished they were there for you because things could have been much different.  Further, that you still carry the pressures of guilt and stress but have since received the grief counseling that you desperately needed.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant the recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in a civil conviction, two NJPs, and SPCM conviction for very serious offenses.  Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence of PTSD or any other mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. 
 
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,