Docket No: 7908-19            
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 4 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 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). 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its 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 and served honorably from 11 October 1974 to 10 October 1978, when you were released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve.  You immediately reenlisted and began a second period of active duty on 78 October 1978.  On 28 September 1983, you were notified of administrative separation proceedings against you on the basis of drug abuse rehabilitation failure with the least favorable characterization of service being a General.  You subsequently waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board.  On 2 December 1983, Commanding Officer (CO), Naval Air Station, , forwarded your package to the Separation Authority recommending your discharge on the basis of misconduct due to drug abuse and that you receive a General discharge under honorable conditions.  On 24 January 1984, you were discharged on the basis of drug abuse rehabilitation failure, and received an Honorable characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 
 
In 2000, you petitioned the Board for a change to your record, (Case # NR20000005519).  On 24 January 2001, the Board considered your application and noted that during your second period of enlistment, on 2 June 1983, you were formally evaluated as a drug or alcohol abuser but found to have potential for continued service.  You were subsequently placed in a Level I substance abuse program and tested once a month for the next six months.  On 1 September 1983, a Navy drug laboratory reported that you had tested positive for marijuana.  The previous Board noted that in-patient drug rehabilitation was reserved for those who are dependent, and that there is no evidence that at the time of your service you were diagnosed as being drug dependent.  The Board determined that your continued drug use while in a Level I program met the criteria for separation by reason of drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  The previous Board considered your request for a change to your RE-4 reenlistment code and narrative separation reason in part to reenlist in the Navy Reserve, but found that there was no basis for changing either the RE-4 or the narrative reason for separation.   
 
In your current application to the Board, you request that the narrative reason for separation be removed; specifically, you request a change to the reference to drug abuse rehabilitation failure, and a change to your RE-4 code.  You state that at the time of your discharge there were no drug rehabilitation services offered or in place.  You contend that you eventually sought treatment in the private sector in 1991, and you have been clean and sober ever since.  You also assert that you were subsequently diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) through Veterans Affairs (VA).  You state that it has only been recently that you sought assistance from Veterans Services, and that for the previous 30 plus years you did not believe that you were eligible for assistance. 
 
The Board noted that your application for correction raises the issue of PTSD.  In a communication dated 18 September 2019, you were asked to provide additional medical or clinical evidence to support your claim.  When you did not provide additional evidence, your case was re-opened and processed for consideration by the Board. 
 
As part of the review process, a Licensed Clinical Psychologist reviewed your request and issued an Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 16 November 2020.  The AO noted that your available records reflected that you were seen by psychiatry twice in boot camp, and your discharge summary revealed a passive-dependent personality disorder with efforts to cope with obsessive-compulsive personality traits.  The AO considered that you were recommended for long-term psychiatric outpatient treatment and discharge from the service at the discretion of the CO.  However, the AO noted that while you did see a psychiatrist twice in boot camp and once while hospitalized, there is no indication the reason for your mental health visits were affecting your occupational or social functioning, thus not meeting criteria for a mental health condition.  Although you contend that you have a post-discharge PTSD diagnosis, the AO noted that no evidence to support the claim has been presented.  The AO concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish that you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service, or your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions.  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, the Hagel Memo, and the Kurta Memo.  These included, but were not limited to your contention that you suffered from PTSD, and that drug rehabilitation services were not offered or in place at the time of your service in the Navy.  The Board noted that you hold an honorable discharge for both periods of active duty, to include from 11 October 1974 to 10 October 1978, and from 11 October 1978 to 24 January 1984.  The Board considered your contentions of lack of drug rehabilitation treatment as well as your claim that you hold a PTSD diagnosis from the VA.  Even in consideration of the your statements in your application, the Board found that your notice of separation and your CO’s 2 December 1983 recommendation for discharge support the narrative reason for separation of drug abuse rehabilitation failure and the RE-4.  The Board again concluded that you did not provide sufficient information to overcome the evidence in your record and to merit a change to the narrative reason for separation or the RE-4.  The Board found that your discharge was issued without error or injustice, and does not merit corrective action. 
 
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,