DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9743-19 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 29 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). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. You commenced a period of active duty in the Navy on 21 June 1999. You reenlisted on 13 January 2003. Thereafter, on 28 January 2004, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA). The record does not provide an end date to your UA period, but reflects that you remained absent until after 15 March 2004, which is the date of your unsigned evaluation report (EVAL) that specifically states you were declared a deserter on 27 February 2004. Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain the documents pertaining to your administrative discharge but, based on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), it appears that after being afforded all of your rights, the separation authority directed discharge with a general, under honorable conditions, character of service by reason of misconduct due to AWOL. You were discharged on 4 August 2004. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 22 December 2020. The AO stated that your in-service records do not contain a diagnosis of PTSD but, in your statements and post-discharge clinical records, you provided a credible history of PTSD due to multiple traumatic stressors. Further, the AO stated you have presented comprehensive clinical evidence of a post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD, which lends great credibility to your claim of PTSD secondary to your military service. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded there is sufficient indirect evidence that you incurred PTSD as a result of your military service and that your misconduct may be mitigated by your experience of PTSD. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were suffering from undiagnosed PTSD and reaching out for help while constantly being told “to deal with it.” The Board further considered the traumatic experiences while serving on USS , USS , and shore duty in , and also the three in-service sexual assaults disclosed, without details, during post-service psychotherapy. Your incomplete record does not detail the extent of your misconduct, but the Board noted your statement about receiving nonjudicial punishment for fighting with another sailor and your admission that you were absent without authority for six months to seek help from your family with your daughter. The Board also noted the EVAL comments for the 6 October 2003 to 15 March 2004 reporting period which described you as “clearly unfit to wear the uniform of a Navy sailor,” “blatantly lied in order to get out of work,” “extremely disrespectful to her peers and superiors,” and “very poor work ethic and cannot be trusted.” For purposes of clemency, the Board noted you did not provide a statement describing post-service accomplishments, supporting documentation, or advocacy letters. Although the Board does not dispute your contention you suffered from PTSD incurred during military service, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD. Specifically, the Board relied upon your own statement within the treatment notes provided that you “went AWOL to to get help with her daughter from family” and the EVAL’s description of your performance, behavior, and conduct prior to the UA and determined your six-month UA, which resulted in your administrative separation, could not be attributed to your PTSD. Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined your misconduct warranted a general, under honorable conditions, 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 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, 2/1/2021 Executive Director