Docket No:  3002-19 
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 issues 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 Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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 29 April 2020, which was previously provided to you. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24 May 1989.  On 28 January 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of marijuana.  Additionally, you were counseled concerning your drug use and warned that further misconduct could result in processing for administrative discharge.  On 4 February 1990, you were counseled concerning being identified as a drug abuser, and again advised that further misconduct could result in processing for administrative discharge.  On 9 May 1991, you received NJP for 30 days of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 13 May 1991, you were notified that you were being considered for an administrative discharge from the Naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.  After being afforded your procedural rights, you indicated that you did not desire to consult with counsel, and did not exercise your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 16 May 1991, a Drug Dependency Evaluation determined you were psychologically dependent on marijuana.  On 17 May 1991, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you be separated from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  On 25 June 1991, the separation authority directed your discharge with an OTH characterization of service, and you were subsequently discharged on 2 July 1991. 
 
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 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 available records in order to evaluate your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition.  In particular the AO noted that you have not submitted any evidence of a post-discharge mental health conditions as rendered by a mental health practitioner.  The AO further provided that additional evidence, 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.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of an in-service mental health condition attributable to you 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 circumstances surrounding your discharge was created by an undiagnosed PTSD.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant the recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in two NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct.  Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to you 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 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,