Docket No: 8651-19 Ref: Signature Date MR Dear Mr.: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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 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 the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 10 December 2020, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 9 April 1989. On 7 April 1989, you were briefed on the Navy policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse. On 18 April 1989, you were identified through urinalysis to be a drug abuser. On 31 Oct 1989, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for underage drinking, drunk and disorderly conduct, attempting an illegal entry onto a military installation, and resisting apprehension. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 18 January 1990, you received NJP for bringing alcohol onboard ship, making a false official statement, wrongful use of marijuana, and underage drinking. On 22 March 1990, you received NJP for wrongful use of marijuana and communicating a threat. On 26 March 1990, after a drug screen interview, you were diagnosed with marijuana abuse, dependency, and recommend for Level III drug and alcohol treatment. On 28 March 1990, you were advised that you were considered to be dependent on alcohol, and that you were eligible for treatment. However, you did not desire alcohol rehabilitation and refused treatment. Additionally, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offenses, a pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 4 April 1990, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 7 April 1990, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct, and that you be offered an opportunity for in-patient treatment via the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hospital. On 10 April 1990, you were, discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. 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 was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during your service. The AO noted, that although you contend you suffered from undiagnosed PTSD, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish that you suffered from PTSD at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD. 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 assertions that: (1) you believe you had undiagnosed PTSD and self-medicated; (2) you were unjustly discharged without counsel, were too young to understand the magnitude of the situation, and were never assessed, evaluated or received treatment; and (3) it took years of self-medicating before you were able to access treatment, and through the process of recovery, you are seeking restoration of your honor. 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, one of which was for wrongful drug involvement, and the fact that you were briefed on the Navy’s policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse and warned of the consequences of further misconduct, outweighed these mitigating factors. Further, the Board noted that you were offered rehabilitation treatment via the DVA, but declined. 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,