Docket No: 6050-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This letter 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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2020. The names and votes of the panel members 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, an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). The Board determined that your 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 28 December 1973. On 12 June 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully and dishonestly welding an overhead plate in the incorrect position while undergoing a welding test. On 27 April 1976, at an Article 15 hearing before your commanding officer (CO), it was determined your unauthorized absence (UA) from 4 January 1976 to 24 March 1976 would be adjudicated by special court-martial (SPCM). On 27 May 1976, you were convicted by SPCM for the UA from 4 January 1976 to 24 March 1976 and sentenced to restriction and reduction in rank. On 28 June 1976, you began a period of UA which ended on 28 July 1976. Upon return from UA, you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation after a suicide attempt while in the correctional custody unit. On 3 August 1976, at an Article 15 hearing before your CO, it was determined that your month-long UA would be adjudicated by SPCM. On 23 August 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the month-long UA. Prior to submitting this request, you consulted a qualified military lawyer, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 24 August 1976, the medical officer reported to the legal officer that your medical examination indicated a psychiatric evaluation was not warranted. On 7 September 1976, your CO was directed to execute your discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 15 September 1976, you were discharged with an OTH character of service. Your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention that you have been diagnosed with PTSD post-service.” As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed your request and provided the Board an AO on 9 October 2020. The AO stated your in-service medical records do not indicate the existence of mental health symptoms or conditions, and there was no claim of mental health symptoms or conditions during your in-service psychiatric evaluation, multiple disciplinary proceedings, or administrative processing. Further, you denied the existence of any mental health symptoms or conditions during your separation physical nor did you mention any traumatic incidents in your request for discharge. The AO further noted you made claims of traumatic incidents in your request to the Board, but you described minimal psychological symptoms or behaviors associated with these events, and did not link these events to your in-service misconduct. The AO concluded that though you carry a current diagnosis of PTSD, the preponderance of available objective evidence does not indicate you suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could have been attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. The AO was provided to you on 9 October 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you suffered from undiagnosed PTSD due to the traumatic incidents you witnessed when in and . Specifically, the Board considered your contention that your undiagnosed PTSD led to your “horrible decision to stay home” when your CO allowed you to fly home early to get married. You further contend that when you returned from the UA period, while in the brig, you were hazed and abused by the Marines and that “by the time [you were] able to talk to a JAG, [you were] willing to do anything to make it stop.” You also contend that you were told that if you “took an OTH,” your discharge would automatically be upgraded in five years. In its review, the Board noted the 20 October 2019 letter from your treating physician referenced your deployment to and where you experienced “unmentionable horrors of war and seen many people die,” but it did not mention the events in and which you described in detail in your personal statement to the Board. The AO’s review of the physician’s letter also noted there were no explanations clarifying what the traumatic incidents were, when your mental health conditions began, or linkage to your in-service misconduct. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your UA misconduct warranted an OTH character of service. Further, the Board concurred with the AO and concluded there was insufficient evidence you suffered from PTSD during military service or that your misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. The Board also noted you consulted counsel prior to submitting your request for discharge and, presuming government regularity, concluded you did not submit evidence that supports your contention that you received erroneous advice concerning automatic upgrade. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP and SPCM, outweighed these mitigating factors. The Board also noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered for clemency, and did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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,