Docket No: 7273-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 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 18 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, which was previously provided to you, and your rebuttal to the AO dated 10 December 2020. You enlisted in the Navy on 20 May 1991. On 19 March 1992, you received a retention warning after a one-day unauthorized absence. On 27 July 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of cocaine. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and elected your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 4 September 1992, you received a second NJP for wrongful use of a controlled substance. On 29 October 1992, the ADB determined the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of misconduct due to drug abuse and recommended that you be separated from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. Your commanding officer concurred with the ADB’s recommendation and forwarded your package to the separation authority (SA). The SA approved the recommendation and directed that you be discharged by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse with an OTH characterization of service. On 4 January 1993, 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 your in-service records do not contain direct or indirect evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated any mental health condition. Although you contend you have a PTSD diagnosis, you have not presented evidence to support the claim. Additionally, there is no evidence linking your purported PTSD diagnosis to your military service or to your misconduct. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. The AO was provided to you on 4 November 2020. In response to the AO, you submitted a number of documents that were generated during your treatment at Naval Hospital prior to discharge as well as other documents related to your claim for equitable relief, to include a letter from a psychiatrist stating you have had multiple hospitalizations for PTSD. These documents were provided to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you experienced “many traumatic events that have left [you] a broken man” and you used drugs to “help [yourself] after experiencing such trauma and heart break in the military.” Specifically, the Board considered your contention that you witnessed your best friend die after the forklift he was driving went over the side of the ship, landing on a fuel barge below and crushing him underneath. You further contend you were aboard the USS when it was hit by a mine and explosions killed many crew members. The Board considered your contention that you “started feeling depressed and had panic attacks and anxiety” and began to drink more alcohol and self-medicate. The Board also considered your contention that you have been in more than 30 facilities for mental disorders since your discharge and take multiple medications. Lastly, the Board considered the letter of appreciation, statements from the ADB, and advocacy letters you submitted for consideration. 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, noting the assignment of “0%” service connection from the Department of Veterans Affairs, concluded there was insufficient evidence linking your PTSD to your military service. The Board, applying liberal consideration, found your drug abuse warrants an OTH characterization of service and 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,