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.     
 
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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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 and personal statement, 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 7 July 1978.  Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  On 7 February 1979 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the failure to obey a lawful order and dereliction of duty.  On 5 March 1979 you received a “Page 13” counseling sheet documenting adverse evaluation marks for both professional performance and military behavior.  On 15 April 1979 you received a “Page 13” counseling sheet documenting adverse evaluation marks for professional performance due to your poor attitude.  On 31 January 1980 you received another “Page 13” counseling sheet documenting adverse evaluation marks in military behavior.  
 
On 6 June 1981 you received NJP for disrespect toward a commissioned officer and insubordinate conduct.  On 6 February 1982 you received NJP for unauthorized absence.  On 30 April 1982 you received NJP for dereliction of duty and disrespect toward a commissioned officer. 
 
On 2 July 1982 your command interviewed you and you indicated that you did not intend to reenlist.  Accordingly, your command did not recommend you for reenlistment.  On 6 July 1982 at the expiration of your obligated service (EAOS), you were discharged from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.  On 6 September 2019, the VA granted you a service-connection for a depressive disorder and rated your disability at 70%. 
 
Your contention that you suffered from a mental health condition 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 29 October 2020.  The Ph.D. noted that your in-service records did not reveal any evidence of any in-service mental health symptoms or conditions.  The Ph.D. observed there were no clinical details linking your VA-diagnosed condition to your military misconduct.  The Ph.D. also noted that you did not indicate you were experiencing any mental health symptoms or conditions at either your separation physical, or during your NJP hearings and subsequent separation processing.  The Ph.D. determined that although you have presented evidence of a post-service mental health diagnosis, there was no evidence of a service-connection linking your diagnosis to your active duty service or your misconduct.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence of a service-connected mental health condition that may have mitigated your misconduct.   
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your contentions that included, but were not limited to:  (a) your emotional and psychological condition early in your enlistment and your progression towards the end of your enlistment should have been considered at discharge, (b) the Navy or administrative personnel aboard USS  () did not warrant you an opportunity to have your discharge waived and ask to be reinstated or allowed to reenlist, and (c) you gained the rank of E-4 shortly before your discharge and believe you deserved an opportunity to know the criteria available to you upon receipt of your discharge.  However, the Board concluded these mitigating factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge characterization, changing your RE-4 reentry code to a more favorable or waivable code, 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 mental health conditions or 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 characterization.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your misconduct spanning your enlistment was not due to mental health-related conditions or symptoms.  The Board also 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.   
 
Moreover, the Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious to deserve an honorable discharge.  The Board determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due.  The Board believed that, even though flawless service is not required for an honorable discharge, in your case a GEN discharge was appropriate.  The Board noted at your EAOS your overall active duty trait average computed from your periodic performance evaluations was 2.86 in the conduct/military behavior category.  Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct/military behavior for a fully honorable characterization of service.  The Board determined that your conduct/military behavior marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your pattern of misconduct (comprising four NJPs and three “Page 13” counseling warnings), which ultimately supported the separation authority’s decision to issue you a GEN characterization of discharge and an RE-4 reentry code. 
 
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.  Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge or change a reentry code solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  In the end, the Board determined that you received the correct discharge characterization and reentry code, and that such actions were in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your reentry code and discharge, and the Board concluded that your pattern of misconduct clearly merited your receipt of a GEN discharge and RE-4 reentry code. 
 
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 GEN 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 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,