DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8696-19 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 11 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, and 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 1 December 2020, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 4 May 1977. On 11 May and 26 July 1979, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP). The offenses included a brief period of unauthorized absence (UA), and disobeying a lawful order. On 5 August 1979, you were counseled concerning your conduct and warned that further deficiencies in you performance or conduct could result in administrative discharge action. During the period from 20 November 1980 to 2 April 1981, you received four NJPs. The offenses included three periods of UA totaling 39 days, using disrespectful language, two specifications of breaking restriction, two specifications of being absent from your appointed place of duty, two specifications of willful disobedience, disrespect, two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, dereliction of duty, failure to obey an order, and failing to go to your appointed place of duty. Additionally, you were again counseled concerning your conduct, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 4 November 1981, you were convicted by special court-martial of three specifications of UA totaling 73 days. You were not sentenced to a punitive discharge. On 10 November 1981, you were notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to your frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. After being afforded your procedural rights, you waived your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 16 December 1981, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 7 March 1982, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that you receive an OTH discharge due to misconduct. On 11 January 1982, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. As part of the Board’s review, 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 were suffering from a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) during your service. The AO noted, that based on the available evidence, there is insufficient objective evidence that you incurred a TBI during your military service or that your misconduct may be mitigated by TBI or other mental health condition. 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 assertion that you incurred a “head injury” on the USS (1978-1979), and that you experienced “stress and depression and nearly had a nervous breakdown.” You further assert that the loss your unborn child and your mother’s cancer diagnosis took a toll on you, and caused you to go into a UA status. You also state that you had two injuries while in service and you are seeking to receive an upgrade to your discharge in order to receive medical benefits. You contend that your OTH discharge should have turned to honorable one year after your release. 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 six NJPs, and SPCM conviction outweighed these mitigating factors. Further, the Board noted that there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for re-characterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 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, 1/25/2021 Executive Director