Docket No: 3625-19 
Ref: Signature Date
 
 
Dear Ms.: 
 
This letter is in reference to your application for correction of the naval record of , filed 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 his characterization of service was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, the application has been denied.     
 
Although the 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 the application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered the application on 19 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 the 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 sought and relied upon an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a medical doctor. 
    
       reenlisted in the Navy on 14 March 1984.  On 2 April 1987, he received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from his place of duty.  On 18 May 1987, he received nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence and breaking restriction.  On 4 December 1987, he received nonjudicial punishment for three specifications of unauthorized absence.  Thereafter, his command sought to discharge      with a general characterization of service, but, based on his misconduct, Naval Personnel Command denied the request and required a form of notification that would provide for the potential of an other than honorable discharge.  In the meantime,      commenced another period of unauthorized absence on 11 March 1988, which ended on 19 September 1988 by his surrender.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 6 October 1988 for his unauthorized absence, and received a bad conduct discharge.  He was discharged on 4 October 1989, when his bad conduct discharge was executed. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions as well as all potentially mitigating factors.  In your petition, you contend that     received an inadequate defense at his court-martial, and that he had various medical ailments that interfered with his performance of duty.  Please keep in mind that, with respect to his defense, a presumption of regularity attaches to official records, and the judgment/sentence that   received for his unauthorized absence conviction does not tend to demonstrate, on its face, an inadequate defense.   
 
With respect to your assertion that medical ailments interfered with his performance of duty, the Board sought the assistance of a medical doctor, who provided an AO, in which the doctor opined: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records document the existence of Alcohol Use Disorder and “Polyneuropathy of Ethanolic Type.” There were no clinical records available that indicated Petitioner had been on any limited duty periods for medical conditions, or that his case was referred for medical board or physical evaluation board review.  There was no evidence that Petitioner was diagnosed with, or exhibited, symptoms or behaviors indicative of a mental health condition. Though there are civilian health insurance claims made to BUMED, as well as applications to Social Security Administration, that cite diagnoses of polyneuropathy and Axonal Guillian-Barre, there were no clinical records or evidence clarifying the medical conditions and their time course during Petitioner’s active duty service, or drawing a linkage to Petitioner’s in service misconduct. There were no in-service or post-discharge civilian clinical records or evidence presented that was indicative of a mental health condition.  Additional evidence, such as medical records containing a diagnosis of a mental health condition associated with his military service and linked to his military misconduct is required to render an alternate opinion. Should the Petitioner choose to submit additional clinical information, it will be reviewed in the context of his claims. 
 
Therefore, at this time, based on the available evidence, it is my considered opinion that there is insufficient evidence that Petitioner incurred a mental health condition during his military service or that his misconduct could be attributed to any mental health conditions. 
 
Based on the foregoing, as well as all of the documents and contentions in the Petition, the Board was unable to find error or injustice in regards to the characterization of discharge. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of the case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.     is 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,