Docket No: 7391-19 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 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 14 December 2000. 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 the 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). You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 18 March 1970. You were found guilty at Summary Court-Martial (SCM) on 28 March 1971, for consuming alcohol beverages aboard the , resisting lawful apprehension, attempting to escape lawful confinement, and assault. On 15 July 1971, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being out of uniform. On 18 August 1971, you received a second NJP for a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from 6 to 9 August 1971. On 25 August 1971, you began a period of UA and missed the sailing of the . You surrendered onboard on 7 September 1971, and were hospitalized at Naval Hospital from 11 to 15 September 1971. You record reflects another period of UA from 20 to 28 September 1971. You received treatment from Naval Hospital from 2 October to 3 December 1971, and were diagnosed with Situational Depression. On 28 December 1971, you were found guilty at SCM for the two periods of UA. You were again treated at Naval Hospital between 11 January and 29 February 1972. On 6 March 1972, you requested an early return to the civilian community; your request was approved and you were recommended for discharge by reason of unfitness. You were discharged from the Navy on 9 March 1972, with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization and received a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your application to the Board, you request that your general discharge be upgraded to honorable. You state that you were told the discharge would upgrade after six months. You assert that the stress aboard the ship “caused a mental breakdown (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),” and you received mental health treatment before your discharge. Since your discharge, you have only had to seek help once in 2000. You are married and you and your wife are raising your four grandchildren. You are trying to obtain insurance through USAA and do not qualify without an honorable discharge. As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed your request and issued an Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 3 November 2020. The Advisory Opinion noted that your in-service records contain direct evidence of severe Personality Disorder and Drug Abuse, but no evidence of psychological behavior changes that may have indicated PTSD. The AO concluded that there is insufficient objective evidence that you incurred PTSD during your military service or that your misconduct may be mitigated by a mental health condition. The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo, then Hagel Memo, and the Kurta Memo. These included, but were not limited to your desire to upgrade your discharge and your assertion that stress onboard the ship caused you to suffer from PTSD. The Board noted that your record reflects two NJPs and two SCM convictions, as well as the receipt of significant mental health treatment during your time in the Navy. The Board concurred in part with the AO in that there is insufficient information to support a conclusion that you suffered from PTSD. However, the Board found that there is sufficient direct evidence that you suffered from mental health conditions during your time in the Navy, and determined that your conduct may have been impacted by your mental health struggles. However, the Board noted that you received a general characterization of service, which is not an adverse characterization of service. Given the length of your time in the Navy (18 March 1970 through 9 March 1972), your overall trait average of 2.63, and taking into account the frequency and seriousness of your misconduct (to include missing movement), the Board concluded that even applying liberal consideration, the general discharge is appropriate. The Board noted you would like to qualify for insurance through USAA, but determined that an upgrade to an honorable discharge 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,