Docket No: 6062-19 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 the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that 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 19 June 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, the previously provided mental health advisory opinions (AO) dated 4 December 2017 and 9 May 2019, and your 15 May 2018 rebuttal letter. You enlisted in the Navy on 24 November 1982. On 20 October 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for willful disobedience of a petty officer, violating a general order, violating a general regulation, and unlawful entry. In March 1986, you pleaded guilty in civil court to driving while under the influence “due to marital problems” and were formally counseled for same. You were honorably discharged on 21 November 1986. You reenlisted in the Navy on 19 January 1988, and again on 16 January 1992. On 30 August 1989, you received NJP for being drunk while on duty as a roving watch. From 5 September 1990 to 13 March 1991, you served aboard in support of and received a letter of commendation. On 10 June 1994, you received a formal retention warning counseling for two periods of indebtedness due to past due rent. During the period from 11 August 1994 to 15 December 1994, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status from your unit on five occasions totaling 30 days, the last of which was terminated by apprehension. Although the Board lacked your entire service record book, available records before the Board indicate that you made a written request for discharge from the naval service for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by special court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. As part of your separation medical evaluation, you disclosed that you attempted suicide in August 1994 and were depressed. Your GOS request was granted and the separating authority directed that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. Because of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. On 6 February 1995, per your request, you were discharged under OTH conditions. In 2008 you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) to upgrade your discharge. At that time you contended that your misconduct was attributable to your “immaturity and undocumented personal problems.” The NDRB noted that your record reflected “willful misconduct” and did not demonstrate that you were “not responsible for [your] conduct or that [you] should not be held accountable for [your] actions.” The NDRB also noted that you consulted with defense counsel and requested to be discharged to avoid trial by court-martial, and determined that a change to your characterization of service “would be inappropriate.” You request an upgrade to your discharge characterization on the basis that you were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of your military service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” the 25 August 2017 memorandum, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.” As part of the review process, naval mental health professionals also reviewed your request and provided the Board with advisory opinions (AO) dated 4 December 2017 and 9 May 2019, regarding your assertion of suffering from PTSD due to an incident that occurred while in port of during a SCUD missile attack. The AOs noted that there is no in-service medical documentation that supports a diagnosis of PTSD. Your record does contain documentation from your discharge physical that you were treated at a civilian hospital after a suicide attempt in August 1994. You did not provide any post-service medical documentation for the period of 1995 to 2016. You supplied a 19 October 2016, post-service outpatient psychologist note, which included prior history of treatment of alcoholism in 1984 and 1995 and diagnosed you with PTSD. The AOs noted that the civilian evaluation provided limited information regarding your symptoms of the PTSD, but does reference that you are seeking therapy because of your experience in the However, the AOs determined that there is insufficient information to render a determination. The AOs noted that your pre-deployment misconduct was largely related to alcohol use disorder, but that your post-deployment misconduct, including UA and a suicide attempt, “could be indicative of emerging PTSD symptoms or a continuation of [your] alcohol use problems.” The initial AO noted that there is “no in-service medical documentation that supports diagnosis of PTSD.” In response to your rebuttal documents, the supplemental AO determined “[t]he implication from the limited records is that a civilian clinician has determined that [your] PTSD symptoms are related to [your] military service.” The supplement AO concurred with the initial AO that “there is insufficient information to render a determination,” and that additional medical records describing your mental health condition and its specific link to your in-service misconduct are required in order to render an opinion. The AOs concluded that, based on the available evidence . . . there is some evidence that [your] post-deployment misconduct could be attributed to PTSD but additional information is needed.” The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including the AOs, your rebuttal, and your contention that you have PTSD resulting from experiences while serving in which contributed, to your misconduct. However, the Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case in light of your misconduct and GOS request to be discharged to avoid trial by court-martial. The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. Your allegations, unsupported in the record, failed to overcome that presumption. The Board further concurred with the AO’s statement that there was insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had service-connected PTSD which contributed to your misconduct. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board in its review discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge. However, the Board also believes that you are eligible for Veterans’ benefits, which accrued during your prior period of honorable service. However, your eligibility is a matter under the cognizance of the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). In this regard, you may contact the nearest DVA office concerning your rights, specifically, whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on these periods 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.