Docket No: 8256-19
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 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 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).  In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 27 November 2020, which was previously provided to you. 
  
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20 February 1962.  During the period from 27 August 1962 to 15 April 1963, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) three times, for three separate periods of unauthorized absence.  Your original service record was incomplete and did not contain all of the documentation pertaining to your separation from the Navy.  Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  However, your Enlisted Performance Record indicates you were convicted by a Special Court-Martial in April 1962.  It also appears that on 25 April 1963, you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation prior to being discharged from the Navy.  On 3 May 1963, you provided a statement on your behalf regarding your administrative discharge.  Your commanding officer also provided a statement pertaining to your separation and recommended you received a general discharge due to unsuitability.  On 6 May 1963, your case was forwarded to the separation authority for appropriate action.  Based on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), you were discharged “under honorable conditions” on 24 June 1963.   
 
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during your service.  The AO noted, that based on the available objective evidence, there is insufficient evidence you incurred a TBI during your enlistment nor that your misconduct may be attributable to TBI or other mental health condition. 
 
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 assertion that your discharge was due to being injured and not treated following an accident while on active duty.  Additionally, you assert were unable to complete your tour, not due to lack of initiative, but to characteristics related to the manifestation of service-related head and neck injuries.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions and assertions.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJPs and SPCM, 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,