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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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) (Kurta Memo, Hagel Memo, and Wilkie Memo collectively, “Clemency Memos”).   
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 11 March 1986.  Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  On 9 December 1988 you were convicted at a Summary Court-Martial for both missing movement of the USS  () in November 1988 and unauthorized absence (UA) lasting eleven days.  On 18 January 1989 you commenced another UA that terminated after five days. 
 
On 25 January 1989 your command provided you notice that you were being administratively processed for separation from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  You elected in writing to waive your rights to consult with counsel, submit statements to the separation authority, and to request a hearing before an administrative separation board.  Ultimately, on 7 February 1989 you were discharged from the Navy for misconduct with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.   
 
As part of the Board review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 18 November 2020.  The Ph.D. noted that your in-service records did not indicate the existence of mental health symptoms or condition.  The Ph.D. also noted that you were diagnosed with a personality disorder and you did not present any evidence to contradict the diagnosis that you suffered from a mental health condition, rather than a personality disorder.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that your personality disorder was properly evaluated and diagnosed, and there was insufficient evidence of any additional service-connected mental health conditions which may have mitigated your misconduct.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Clemency Memos.  These included, but were not limited to your contentions that:  (a) as a result of ongoing severe psychological difficulties you were experiencing prior to November 1998 you went UA, and (b) at the time you were unaware of your action or the consequences.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 
 
In accordance with the Clemency Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service.  However, the Board concluded that there was no nexus between any mental health conditions or related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related conditions or symptoms.  The Board noted that, despite your contention about being unaware of your actions or consequences, the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions.     
 
The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years.  The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a sailor.  Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief.  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,