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 case on its merits.  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.   
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy Reserve in April 1994.  Non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for underage drinking on 26 August 1994.  A second non-judicial punishment was imposed on 12 April 1997 for two specifications of unauthorized absence.  You entered alcohol rehabilitation treatment on 8 May 1997 but were later discharged as a rehabilitation failure on 14 May 1997.  On 13 June 1997, non-judicial punishment was again imposed on you for incapacitation for duty and dereliction of duty resulting in your notification of administrative separation processing for pattern of misconduct and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  You underwent a separation physical on 14 June 1997 which medically cleared you to separate from the Navy.  You were discharged on 27 June 1997 for misconduct with a General characterization of service.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated you for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at 50% before increasing your rating to 100%. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability, an upgrade to honorable, and advancement to E-4.  You argue that your discharge should have been based on your PTSD condition and your frocking was wrongfully delayed until you were discharged from the Navy.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  First, the Board determined you were ineligible for disability processing since you were administratively separated for misconduct.  Disability regulations direct misconduct processing to supersede disability processing.  Based on these factors, the Board concluded you were properly discharged for pattern of misconduct vice disability.  Second, the Board found no evidence that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your PTSD condition.  A review of your 14 June 1997 report of medical history shows you reported to be in “good” health with no “depression or excessive worry” symptoms.  This was strong medical evidence to the Board that you were fit to continue on active duty at the time of your discharge from the Navy.  Third, the Board concluded your characterization of service remains appropriate.  Even liberally considering the evidence in your case, including the existence of a mental health condition, the Board determined your misconduct was related to your alcohol abuse rather than PTSD.  The made this finding based on the 14 June 1997 medical history report that showed you were not symptomatic for PTSD at the time of your discharge.  Therefore, in applying the criteria for characterizations of service, the Board determined your service was generally faithful and honest but contained incidents of misconduct that outweighed the positive aspects of your service.  They based this finding on the relatively brief period of active duty service you performed and the three non-judicial punishments that documented the five incidents of misconduct you committed.  Fourth, the Board found no basis to grant you retroactive advancement to the paygrade E-4.  There was no evidence in your record that you were advanced to E-4 prior to your release from active duty.  The fact the command delayed your frocking to E-4 did not convince the Board an advancement was merited since frocking is not equivalent to an advancement and does not involve an increase in pay.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change in your record.  
 
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.