Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 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. You enlisted in the Navy on 31 October 1978. Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 12 March 1979 you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence (UA) lasting twenty eight days. On 21 May 1979 you went to NJP for failing to obey a lawful general regulation. On 1 August 1979 you received NJP for possession of marijuana and for larceny. On 22 February 1980 you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) of separate counts of burglary and housebreaking on base. As punishment you were sentenced to a discharge from the Navy with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement for five months and forfeitures of pay for six months. Following completion of the post-trial appellate review process, you were discharged from the Navy with a BCD on 5 June 1981. In October of 1997 the Board initially denied your petition for relief, and in April 2010 the Board denied you relief for a second time. The Board in its 2010 decisional document stated that it was not persuaded that you were suffering from PTSD at the time of your discharge or that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability. Your contention that you suffered from PTSD 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 BCNR Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 22 October 2020. The Ph.D. noted your in-service records did not contain direct or indirect evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes indicating any mental health condition. The Ph.D. determined that although you contended you have a post-discharge PTSD diagnosis, you did not provide any evidence to support such claim and there is no evidence linking your purported PTSD diagnosis to your military service or misconduct. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the preponderance of the evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD on active duty, or that your misconduct was attributable to PTSD or other mental health conditions. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your contentions that included, but were not limited to: (a) you had prior Army service in , and (b) you are dealing with PTSD and this diagnosis mitigates the misconduct leading to your discharge. However, the Board concluded these mitigating factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge characterization or granting any other relief. 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, the Board concluded that there was no nexus between any PTSD and/or PTSD-related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concurred with the AO and concluded that your misconduct was not due to PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms. The Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from BCNR on 24 October 2019 to specifically provide additional documentary material. The Board noted that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions. Additionally, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. The Board also noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it might grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of discharge, even one awarded by a court-martial. However, the Board concluded that despite your contentions this is not a case warranting any clemency. You were properly convicted at a SPCM of serious misconduct, and the Board did not find any evidence of an error or injustice in this application that warrants upgrading your BCD. 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). Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Navy, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements. 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. 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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,