Docket No: 7818-19 
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 8 January 2021.  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 16 November 2020, which was previously provided to you.   
 
The Board determined your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 2 November 1989.  On 5 July 1990, you received a civil conviction for aiding and abetting, and fraudulent use of a birth certificate.  On 5 June 1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 27 April 1991 to 29 May 1991, missing ship’s movement, disrespect toward a commissioned officer, willful disobedience of a commissioned officer, willful disobedience of a petty officer, and failure to obey a lawful order.  On 9 August 1991, you were convicted by summary court-martial for a UA from 26 June 1991 to 23 July 1991.  On 6 September 1991, you received a second NJP for wrongful use of marijuana while in .  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense.  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.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.  On 25 October 1991, 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 16 November 2020.  The AO stated that your in-service records do not contain direct evidence of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated any mental health condition.  The AO also noted you did not indicate you were experiencing any mental health symptoms during your military service, and, when evaluated for substance/alcohol dependency, there was no indication you complained of any mental health symptoms.  Further, the AO stated you have not presented evidence of a mental health diagnosis.  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 service, or that your in-service misconduct should be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions.  The AO was provided to you on 28 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 the recruiter lied to you regarding the need for “A” school.  Specifically, the Board considered your contention that you relied upon the recruiter’s guidance that you did not need an “A” school before reporting to your ship because you could “apply for the type of job [you]wanted after seeing what [you were] interested in.”  Upon realizing this was a “total lie,” you felt “slighted, subjugated, and alone” and “all [you] could think of was escape.”  You contend you “wanted out and even sought counseling from the ship’s doctor.  But he too was ignored.”  The Board also considered your contention that during your ship’s 10 months of wartime cruising, you were “terrified, sleepless, and living in a constant cycle of fear and reckless bravado.”  You contend you “contemplated suicide so many times” and began to “see discharge as [your] only salvation” so you intentionally used drugs because you viewed them as the “best and quickest way.”  Additionally, the Board considered the post-service you provided in your statement, but noted you did not provide supporting documents or advocacy letters further detailing your post-service record.   
 
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 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,