Dear This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 7 May 2019. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. Pursuant to your request, the names of the panel members in your previous case were They voted unanimously to deny your application. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 September 2019. 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. Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 6 September 2018 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 11 September 2018 along with your response to the opinions. The Board carefully and liberally considered your arguments that you deserve disability retirement benefits, constructive credit for retirement, return to active duty to qualify for retirement, waiver of indebtedness, and upgrade to Honorable. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 6 September 2018 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 11 September 2018 and the rationale of this Board in denying your previous application. First, the Board concluded you were properly notified of administrative separation processing due to your multiple alcohol related incidents and competently submitted a voluntary qualified resignation request that was accepted by the Navy. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion that there was insufficient evidence to support a medical finding that you were mentally incompetent when you submitted your resignation request. As such, despite the existence of your mental health condition while on active duty that was later rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Board determined your resignation was properly submitted and accepted in accordance with applicable regulations. The Board considered your argument that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your mental health condition but determined the medical evidence did not support such a finding. They relied on the 12 August 2016 medical report that found you psychologically fit and suitable for full duty despite the existence of various disability conditions. In the Board’s opinion, this was strong medical evidence that you were fit to continue on active duty approximately one month prior to your release from active duty. The VA rating was determined not to be probative on the issue of unfitness for continued naval service since eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. As pointed out earlier, a medical determination was made by the Navy on the issue of fitness just prior to your release from active duty that contradicts your argument that your VA rating substantiates your unfitness at the time of your discharge. Second, the Board considered whether constructive credit to qualify you for retirement was appropriate in your case. In the end, they concluded it was not, based on your multiple incidents of serious misconduct. The Board felt you were not deserving of retirement based on your multiple driving under the influence offenses after you were offered two opportunities to complete alcohol rehabilitation treatment. They concluded you were fortunate that your resignation was accepted since your offenses were serious enough for a referral to a court-martial and it was likely that you would have received a less than honorable characterization of service. So despite the existence of your mental health conditions, the Board decided you already received sufficient mitigation credit by being allowed to resign rather than face administrative separation processing. The Board determined for the same reasons it was inappropriate to return you to active duty to allow you to retire. Third, based on the Board’s decision that you were properly allowed to resign your commission, they concluded your Surface Warfare Officer bonus was properly recouped by the Navy. In their opinion, you failed to fulfill the obligations required for earning the bonus through no fault of the Navy and should be required to repay it. The Board examined whether an injustice exists as a result of the recoupment and concluded the benefits you received by being allowed to resign outweighed any injustice that exists as a result of the Navy’s decision to recoup the bonus. Fourth, the Board found that your characterization of service remains appropriate despite the existence of your disability conditions. A general characterization of service is appropriate in cases where significant aspects of a military record outweighs the positive aspects despite honest and faithful service. The Board concluded this described your military record based on the three driving under the influence offenses and one non-judicial punishment in your record. The Board liberally considered your strong performance throughout your Navy career, along with your diagnosed mental health conditions, but determined the multiple alcohol related events were too serious to overlook because of the potential for death or serious injury by your driving under the influence incidents and because you were offered and completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment before committing two of the offenses. As a result, in their opinion, the preponderance of the evidence supports the General characterization of service you received upon your discharge from the Navy. The Board also noted that you already received an Honorable characterization of service for your enlisted active duty service from 3 February 1997 through 24 May 2007 which significantly reduced the existence of injustice by the issuance of a General upon your final discharge. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 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. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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.