DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 3079-19 
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. 

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 18 June 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, as well as the 7 May 2020 advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy mental health professional.
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 27 February 2001.  On 25 January 2003, you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence and wrongful use of marijuana.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The discharge authority concurred with the CO and directed that you be discharged by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse with an OTH characterization of service.  On 3 March 2003, you started a period of unauthorized absence and were subsequently discharged in absentia on 9 April 2003. 

Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention you suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and “anxiety like symptoms” 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 MilitaryDischarge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.”
 
As part of the Board’s review, a Navy mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 7 May 2020.  The AO noted that review of your in-service record did not yield evidence of an in-service mental health condition.  The AO further noted that your evaluating psychiatrist “endorsed some PTSD-like symptoms” but opined “Patient does not appear to have PTSD from military combat although has residual effects on self-confidence from errors made in military service.”  The AOalso noted there is no diagnosis of PTSD in your post-service records but the record does contain several notes that refer to PTSD-like symptoms but “do not comment on any linkage between his mental health conditions and his in-service misconduct.”  The AO concluded there was insufficient evidence to corroborate an in-service mental health condition that may have mitigated your misconduct.  The AO was provided to you on 7 May 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 PTSD while in service.  Specifically, you contend you experienced a traumatic event during your time onboard the carrier.  While operating the hangar bay elevator, you destroyed the nose of a plane parked on top of it while sending three bombs to the flight deck. You describe being “frozen with fear” and not knowing what to do.  After the incident, you contend you were bullied by your shipmates.  You further contend you experienced personal problems back home and with your fiancé.  The Board considered your contention that “the weight of the issues surrounding my professional and private life were extremely overwhelming” and led you to “self-medicate with alcohol and cannabis.” The Board also considered the numerous advocacy letters submitted on your behalf and your post-service accomplishments.  However, the Board concurred with the AO’s determination that there was insufficient evidence in the record to corroborate an in-service mental health condition that may have mitigated your self-medication.  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,