DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8393-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 22 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 2 December 2020, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy on 11 March 1980. On 29 September 1980, after attempting suicide by overdose of prescription medication, you were diagnosed by the mental health clinic with immature personality disorder. On 17 November 1980, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for three unauthorized absences (UA) totaling 22 days and 5.5 hours. On 24 November 1980, you received a second NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. On 4 December 1980, you received a third NJP for failure to obey an order and being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 10 December 1980, you received a fourth NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty and for sitting on the ship’s mast. On 25 February 1981, you received a fifth NJP for wrongful appropriation and impersonating a commissioned officer. On 8 April 1981, you received a sixth NJP for possession of a switch blade knife. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. 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 discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. On 8 June 1981, 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 2 December 2020. The AO stated that you submitted limited clinical documentation to support your contention that you were misdiagnosed with an immature personality disorder while in service and should have been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and depression. The AO confirms that you report a post-discharge diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, but noted the stresses of military life are different from the stresses of civilian life, so treatment records are required to render an alternate opinion. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that, while you carry a post-discharge diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish you suffered from mental health conditions at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to mental health conditions. The AO was provided to you on 14 December 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 your behavior was due to “bipolar and depression disease” but was misdiagnosed as a personality disorder. Specifically, you contend you have been “bipolar for my whole life and was classified as having a personality disorder because bipolar was not known 30 years ago.” The Board considered your contention that the onset of your bipolar disorder “happened after boot camp and A school,” and you were bipolar at the time of your discreditable conduct and “probably suffering manic episodes.” You further contend you were sent to the brig several times and chained to an engine room hatch while suffering manic episodes. Further, the Board noted you did not provide any documentation regarding post-service accomplishments or advocacy letters. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined that 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, 1/28/2021 Executive Director