DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7272-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear Mr.: 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 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 11 December 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, 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 also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 4 November 2020. You enlisted in the Navy on 20 June 2001. From 17-20 February 2002, you received psychiatric inpatient treatment after reporting suicidal ideations and self-mutilating behavior. On 11 March 2002, you were diagnosed with a personality disorder and expeditious administrative separation was recommended. On 26 March 2002, you received nonjudicial punishment for 17 instances of larceny/wrongful appropriation due to stealing three credit cards and wrongfully using them to purchase approximately $782.95 worth of goods at various stores; four instances of forgery due to forging four signatures on credit card receipts to purchase goods; and obtaining services under false pretenses by utilizing a stolen credit card to pay for four telephone calls. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder. After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct and convenience of the government. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 2 May 2002, you were discharged. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 4 November 2020. The AO stated that although you provided evidence of a post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD and major depression, the post-discharge clinical records did not establish a linkage between your post-discharge diagnoses and your in-service misconduct. The AO noted the misconduct of stealing credit cards and multiple episodes of forgery to procure items fraudulently are not typical misconduct behaviors for someone claiming PTSD as the cause of the criminal behavior. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded there is insufficient evidence that you exhibited symptoms of PTSD during your military service or that your misconduct may be mitigated by PTSD or other mental health conditions. The AO was provided to you on 4 November 2020, and you were given 30 days to respond. When you did not respond within the 30 days, the case was submitted to the Board for review. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you developed PTSD while in-service after being beaten by a group of British men. Specifically, you contend a group of British guys beat you until you were unconscious, then stripped you down to your underwear, and left you outside a club. You contend you were humiliated, embarrassed, and felt “full of dishonor.” You contend you later took the pants of one of the British sailors which caused your discharge. The Board also considered your contention that when you were taken for mental evaluations, you never got to express what happened to you and why you were acting so immaturely. You further contend “all that mattered was that I was a bad black sailor.” For purposes of clemency, the Board also considered your statement describing your post-service accomplishments but noted you did not provide supporting documentation or advocacy letters. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your misconduct warranted an OTH character of service. Further, the Board, relying on the AO, concluded there was insufficient evidence that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board also noted your adjudicated misconduct did not match the misconduct you disclosed in your statement. Further, the Board noted the misconduct was not impulsive, as you suggest in your statement, but occurred over a span of time. The Board, applying liberal consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. 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. These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions discussed above. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your serious misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors. 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 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, 1/21/2021 Executive Director