Docket No: 7599-19 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 23 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 12 November 2020, which was previously provided to you. The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy on 24 February 1986. On 26 May 1987, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a single-day unauthorized absence. On 5 May 1989, you received a second NJP for disobeying a lawful order. On 14 June 1989, you received a third NJP for wrongful use of cocaine. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and homosexuality. Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain the administrative separation notification but the recommendation of the commanding officer (CO) on 29 June 1989, referenced the notification. After you waived your procedural rights, your CO forwarded your package to the separation authority (SA) recommending your discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct. The SA approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 17 July 1989, 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 12 November 2020. The AO stated that 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. You contend you suffered from a mental health condition while in-service; however no evidence to support the contention has been presented. The AO further states you may have witnessed the stabbing event you described but there is no evidence the event interfered with your social or occupational functioning because your performance record remained consistent. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from one at the time of your service, or that your in-service misconduct should be attributed to a mental health condition. The AO was provided to you on 17 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 are requesting an upgrade to better yourself-esteem and to “get some benefits that other veterans that have served with [you]” received. The Board also considered your contention that, while at sea on your ship, you were often paranoid and afraid that you were “going to get thrown overboard” or slip. You further contend you witnessed a shipmate stabbed to death by another shipmate “right before [your] eyes.” You contend you “turned to what [you] thought would assist [you] in just getting thru for a moment” and “made the biggest mistake of [your] life.” The Board also considered your contention you were not given a chance to “rectify [your] future through counseling or rehab while on active duty” but was instead given an OTH discharge. Further, the Board considered the documentation provided from the City of Police which indicates you have “no record,” and the advocacy letters submitted by your spouse, friend that serves as a judge, and a childhood friend. 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 you suffered from a mental health condition in-service or that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. 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,