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 18 December 2020.  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). 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 13 November 1989.  On 22 March 1990, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction of duty.  On the same day you received a “Page 13” counseling sheet (Page 13) documenting the NJP and warning you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative separation.  On 25 September 1991 and 1 October 1991 you received Page 13 counseling sheets documenting your completion of Level III inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  Both Page 13 counseling sheets warned you that any subsequent incidents or a failure to complete any aspect of your aftercare treatment program would be grounds for administrative separation as an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  On 29 March 1992 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which resulted in missing your ship’s movement on 30 March 1992.  On 7 May 1992 you received NJP for missing movement and UA lasting thirty-nine (39) days.  On 17 July 1992 you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  You elected to waive your right to consult with counsel and to submit statements to the separation authority, and you also did not object to your separation.  You were not eligible to present your case to an administrative separation board because you did not have enough total active service and the least favorable characterization of service was general (under honorable conditions).  On 24 July 1992 you were separated with an honorable characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. 
 
The VA granted you a service-connection for PTSD with alcohol dependence effective 19 July 2010.  Additionally, as part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a medical doctor and Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (MD), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 10 December 2020.  The Physician Advisor concluded by stating there was sufficient evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD on active duty and that your misconduct may be mitigated by your 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 desire to change your reenlistment code and narrative reason for separation, and your contentions:  (a) the regulations state that an individual who participates in an alcohol rehabilitation program and then subsequently commits an alcohol related offense should be discharged with the reason code for "Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure,” (b) an alcohol-related offense triggers the alcohol rehabilitation failure discharge narrative, (c) your UA and missing movement offenses were not alcohol-related, (d) having the current narrative reason for separation is akin to a “scarlet letter” when applying for veterans benefits and a bar to employment when seeking veterans preference, (e) at the time of your discharge you were not given the time nor option of disputing the narrative, not given an explanation of what an RE 4 re-enlistment code meant, and not given the right of refusal and an option to dispute, and (f) you are currently rated by the VA with a 70% service-connected disability rating.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.   
 
In accordance with the published guidance, 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 determined by virtue of your aftercare failure following alcohol rehabilitation treatment that you met the Navy’s definition of an alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The Board concluded that your command did not commit any errors in the handling of your misconduct and alcohol-related issues.  Rather, the Board noted that the record reflects that your commanding officer stated the underlying basis for your separation was your “failure to adhere to the aftercare standards set forth by his [your] Level III treatment,” and your “recent NJP offense and failure to adhere to rehabilitation procedures is prejudicial to good order and discipline.”  The Board determined that you received the correct discharge narrative reason and reentry code and that such action was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge, and these aspects outweighed the 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,