Dear ,  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was 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 case on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2019.  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 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.   
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in February 1974.  You injured your left thigh and knee on 17 August 1976 resulting in your treatment at Naval Regional Medical Center  on 20 September 1976.  A medical board diagnosed you with left thigh myositis ossificans, left knee limitation of motion, and left quadriceps insufficiency on 1 November 1976 and recommended your continued treatment while assigned within the continental United States.   You were reenlisted on 13 January 1977 after being assigned an Honorable characterization of service for your first enlistment.  Eventually, you were transferred to USS Orion on 23 August 1977 where you served without incident until 1979.  On 27 April 1979, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for two specifications of unauthorized absence.  Another non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for a longer term unauthorized absence on 20 July 1979.  You subsequently left military jurisdiction without authorization on 17 September 1979 until you were apprehended on 30 March 1983.  As a result of your long term unauthorized absence, you were convicted by a Special Court-Martial on 28 April 1983 and awarded a Bad Conduct Discharge.  You were subsequently discharged on 17 January 1984 with a Bad Conduct Discharge after completion of your appellate review. 
  
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability.  You assert that you were injured and chose to reenlist in 1977.  You also argue that you suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after your father and brother died in 1979.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  First, the Board found no evidence that you were diagnosed with PTSD.  Based on the lack of a diagnosis, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were symptomatic for PTSD or that a nexus exists between your claimed PTSD and your misconduct.  Second, based on the lack of a diagnosis and your superior performance in early 1979, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to PTSD.  The Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence shows you were performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your misconduct.Third, the Board determined you were mentally responsible for your misconduct.  There was no evidence presented that supports a finding that you were not criminally culpable for the misconduct that form the basis for your bad conduct discharge.  Finally, based on the Board’s finding that you were criminally responsible for your misconduct that formed the basis for your punitive discharge, the Board determined you were ineligible for disability processing even if evidence of PTSD exists.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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,