Dear : 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 2 May 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  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. 
 
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 8 July 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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 12 August 1981.  On 2 November 1981, you were dropped from basic electricity and electronics school due to a negative attitude. During the period from 3 June 1982 through 15 July 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment three times for unauthorized absence, attempting to burglarize a vehicle, and possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages onboard ship.  On 25 April 1985, you were placed on limited duty after three days of hospitalization for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.  On 13 May 1985, you received a letter of indebtedness for a total of $1283.49.  On 4 June 1985, you were convicted by civil court of driving under the influence of alcohol.  On 22 July 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment for the fourth time due to a period of unauthorized absence.  On 5 September 1985, you were prescribed Antabuse, and on 9 September 1985, you commenced drug and alcohol 
abuse counseling.  On 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 
 
On 24 November 1985, you were convicted in civil court of failure to obey a police officer, driving under the influence of alcohol, and assuming a false name.  On 26 November 1985, you were convicted by civil court of failure to appear, reckless driving, and driving with a revoked driver’s license.  On 13 December 1985, you returned from an eight-day period of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 7 January 1986, you were notified of administrative separation processing and you waived all of your procedural rights except the right to obtain copies of documents forwarded to the separation authority supporting the basis of the proposed separation.  On 8 January 1986, you were diagnosed as psychologically dependent on alcohol and recommended for separation because of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The attending medical officer indicated that you would likely experience further problems with alcohol, and that you denied having an alcohol problem, and intended to continue drinking.  On 28 January 1986, you were discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable characterization of service due to frequent involvement with civil and military authorities.  
 
The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions as well as all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that you suffer from PTSD as a result of your service.  Please note that you previously provided the Board this information, and the Board previously obtained an advisory opinion concerning this contention, in your previous reconsideration case.  The Board also carefully considered the letters and attachments to your petition.  After careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading 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.