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 15 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”).   
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their 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 on 2 October 1990.  Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  On 29 August 1992 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA).  On 2 October 1992 you received NJP for disorderly conduct and drunkenness.  On 1 April 1993 you received NJP for failing to obey a lawful order and two specifications of UA.  Following your third NJP, you were disqualified for submarine duty and your command removed your enlisted submarine designator. 
 
On 30 August 1993 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 a written statement to the separation authority, and to request a hearing before an administrative separation board.  In the interim, on 2 November 1993 you commenced an unauthorized absence and did not return to military control prior to your discharge.  Ultimately, on 12 November 1993 you were discharged in absentia 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 Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 4 December 2020.  The Ph.D. noted that your available in-service records did not contain any information regarding referrals to medical or mental health services or descriptions of behaviors which would have indicated a referral for services would be warranted.  The Ph.D. also noted that your in-service records did not contain direct or indirect evidence of a PTSD diagnosis, psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated any mental health condition, and/or any indication you were exposed to a primary or secondary trauma while in service.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD on active duty, and/or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions.   
 
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:  (a) that you were misled by senior personnel about how your discharge would work, and (b) at the time of your discharge you didn’t understand PTSD or any of the trauma from going to war onboard a submarine.  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 convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health condition was related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms.  Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from the Board on 12 December 2019 to specifically provide additional documentary material.  The Board also determined that 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 noted 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.  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, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct merited your receipt of an OTH. 
 
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,