DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9017-19 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 your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. 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 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 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 March 1987. On 3 October 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence (UA). Administrative Remarks of 19 December 1988, indicate that you were counseled regarding continual tardiness and not being at your appointed place of duty. On 19 April 1989, you received a second NJP for a period of UA from 5 to 18 April 1989. On 2 June 1989, you received a third NJP for assault, and provoking speeches and gestures. On 4 August 1989, you received a fourth NJP for failure to obey a direct order. On 9 August 1989, you were reduced in paygrade to E-2. On 15 August 1989, Commanding Officer, USS (LPD ) notified you of administrative separation proceedings against you; you subsequently waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board. On 29 September 1989, you were discharged on the basis of a pattern of misconduct, and received an other than honorable discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your application to the Board, you request an upgrade to your discharge and indicate that you are in need of medical treatment for service connected injuries and mental help for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). You state that you currently receive SSI for your injuries. You also indicate that your record was altered after you signed it, and that you were to report to Veterans Affairs for medical injuries upon release from the Navy. You contend that you are disabled from injuries incurred while in the military. You cite being harassed by your lead supervisor while in the Navy. You also provide a personal statement in which you detail receiving treatment from your family doctor for panic attacks and a sleep disorder, and note that you are receiving care in part for depression and PTSD. The Board noted that your application for correction raises a potential issue of a mental health condition due to your time in . In a communication dated 17 December 2019, you were asked to provide additional medical or clinical evidence to support your claim. When you did not provide additional evidence, your case was re-opened and processed for consideration by the Board. As part of the review process, a Licensed Clinical Psychologist reviewed your request and issued an Advisory Opinion dated 14 December 2020. The Advisory Opinion noted that your in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated any mental health condition. The Advisory Opinion concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish that you exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD as a result of your military service, or that your misconduct may be mitigated by a post-service mental health condition. The Advisory Opinion was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. 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, the Hagel Memo, and the Kurta Memo. These included, but were not limited to your contention that you suffered from PTSD while you were in the Navy, that you have service-connected medical issues, and that you are in need of medical care. The Board considered your personal statement regarding your ongoing health struggles, but noted that you did not provide medical information directly from the providers who are giving you care. Absent such information, the Board substantially concurred with the Advisory Opinion, and determined that there is insufficient evidence to find that you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, which may have mitigated your misconduct. Based on the four NJPs in your record, the Board found that your other than honorable discharge was appropriately assigned on the basis of a pattern of misconduct. Additionally, the Board noted processing for administrative discharge for misconduct take precedence over processing for disability. Even in consideration of your assertion of a service-connected disability, the Board found that your misconduct as evidenced by your four NJPs was an appropriate basis for your administrative discharge. The Board concluded that your current discharge does not reflect an error or an injustice, and corrective action is not warranted. 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, 2/4/2021 Executive Director