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 initially enlisted in the Navy on 7 May 1986 and reenlisted on 7 January 1990.  Your pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  On 24 April 1992 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA).  Prior to the termination of your UA, on 2 June 1992 a Report of Declaration of Desertion filed by your command stated that you were pending a General Court-Martial for dereliction of duty, false official statement, larceny, wrongfully opening certain mail matter, and falsely making U.S. postal money orders.  On 18 July 1992 your UA terminated after eighty-one days with your apprehension by civil authorities in .  On 28 July 1992 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for your eighty-one day UA. 
 
On 31 July 1992 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 as evidenced by your July 1992 NJP.  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 12 August 1992 the suspended portion of your July 1992 NJP was vacated due to continued misconduct.  On 4 September 1992 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 27 November 2020.  The Ph.D. noted that your available in-service personnel and medical records did not reveal evidence that you exhibited any mental health symptoms or conditions on active duty other than substance abuse.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence of a service-connected mental health condition that may have mitigated your in-service misconduct.  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.  
 
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) at the time you had a death in the family and suffered a nervous breakdown, and (b) since 1992 you have been a good veteran and citizen, and not been in any trouble.  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.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP and administrative processing, 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.