Docket No: 8767-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 22 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, 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). The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 11 December 2020. You enlisted in the Navy on 17 February 1987. After testing positive on your urinalysis upon accession into recruit training, you received an administrative remarks (Page 13) entry which identified you as a drug abuser and placed you on a drug urinalysis surveillance regiment program. On 16 March 1989, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully adulterating a urine sample. On 6 April 1989, you received a second NJP for wrongful possession of an alcoholic beverage aboard a Navy vessel, wrongful use of marijuana on three occasions, and wrongful use of cocaine. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your Commanding Officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 20 September 1989, you were discharged. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 11 December 2020. The AO stated you have been diagnosed with PTSD as the result of an explosion on the USS in which you were a first responder. Noting the date of the explosion, 19 April 1989, the AO noted the explosion occurred after the misconduct that resulted in your administrative separation processing, and therefore cannot be a mitigating factor. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that although you have provided documentation of a post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD connected to your military service, the preponderance of available evidence indicates your in-service misconduct could not be attributed to your PTSD. The AO was provided to you on 11 December 2020, and you were given 30 days to respond. When you did not respond within the allotted time, your case was forwarded to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you “had a mental illness, addiction to alcohol and drugs.” The Board further considered your contention that you fought the turret fire with “honor and bravery” when an explosion occurred onboard USS on 19 April 1989. The Board specifically noted your unselfish bravery as a first responder despite the fact you were awaiting administrative separation processing for misconduct. Further, the Board noted your drug use prior to entry, upon entry, and repeated use of marijuana and cocaine during service. The Board also considered the advocacy letters submitted by your friend, your leading petty officer at the time of the explosion, and a peer you worked alongside when responding to the turret fire. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your misconduct warranted an OTH character of service. Further, the Board, relying on the AO, concluded there was insufficient evidence you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your misconduct which resulted in administrative separation processing or that your drug-related misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board, applying liberal consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. 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 upgrade your discharge and contentions discussed above. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your repeated drug-related misconduct 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. Sincerely,