Docket No: 9483-19    
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 1 February 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).  Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so.   
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 21 March 1994.  On 11 August 1994, you received nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence on three occasions as well as for three instances of disobeying orders.  On 26 August 1994, you received nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey an order.  On 14 September 1994, you received nonjudicial punishment for underage drinking and for being incapacitated for duty.  On 30 September 1994, you were issued notice of administrative separation processing.  You initially invoked your right to an administrative discharge hearing.  On 7 October 1994, however, you revoked your request for an administrative discharge hearing and stated that you did not object to the separation.  On 2 November 1994, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 30 November 1994, you were discharged with an other than honorable 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 that you were pressured into dropping your request for an administrative discharge board and that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression, which contributed to your misconduct.  The Board reviewed the 17 December 2020 AO regarding your contention that you suffered from mental health conditions.  The Licensed Clinical Psychologist concluded that, “based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion although Petitioner contends he suffered from PTSD, the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions.”  The Board relied in large part upon the AO in reaching its decision.  Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJPs 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 the 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,