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 application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies to include the 25 July 2018 Under Secretary of Defense Memo on Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations. You enlisted in the Navy on 24 May 1999. Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions and/or symptoms. On 15 October 1999 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) and missing movement of the USS (). You were issued a “Page 13” counseling warning (Page 13) documenting your NJP that warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary or administrative action. On 28 June 2000 you received NJP for desertion following a 159-day UA. On 13 December 2000 you received NJP for insubordinate conduct and incapacitation for duty due to previous overindulgence of alcohol. On 4 April 2001 you received NJP for two specifications of incapacitation for duty due to previous overindulgence of alcohol and disorderly conduct. On 4 April 2001 you received another Page 13 warning you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary or administrative action. On 30 April 2001 you commenced intensive outpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment. You were terminated from treatment following two incidents of UA and the consumption of alcohol while in treatment. On 9 July 2001 you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial of two specifications of UA, failure to obey a lawful order and flight from apprehension. On 11 July 2001 you were provided notice that you were being administratively processed for separation from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense. You elected in writing to waive your rights to consult with counsel, submit a written statement, and to request a hearing before an administrative separation board. Ultimately, on 23 August 2001 you were discharged from the Navy for a pattern of misconduct with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. Your contention that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on active duty was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014, and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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" memorandum of 25 August 2017. As part of the Board review process, the Board Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.) reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 23 October 2020. The AO noted that there was sufficient indirect evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD during your military service and your misconduct after October of 2000 may be mitigated by your mental health disorder. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contention that you suffered from PTSD due to your time in service during the Operation response. In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018). Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice. The Board concluded that your OTH discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. In accordance with the published guidance, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that there was no nexus between any PTSD and/or PTSD-related symptoms and the majority of your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions mitigated the majority of the misconduct forming the basis of your discharge. 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. Sincerely,