Docket No: 415-21 
 
 
Dear Petitioner:

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 13 August 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 6 July 2021 which was previously provided to you.   

You enlisted in the Navy on 23 February 2000 after receiving a waiver for a prior positive drug screen that resulted in your administrative discharge from the delayed entry program.  On 1 December 2000, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended when you surrendered on 15 February 2001.  On 2 March 2001, you received nonjudicial punishment for the UA period, disobeying written orders, and unauthorized use of a controlled substance.  Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain the documents pertaining to your administrative separation processing, but a review of your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicates the discharge authority directed discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  On 3 June 2001, 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 6 July 2021.  The AO stated your in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes that may have indicated a mental health condition.  Specifically, the AO stated that throughout your military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources.  Additionally, the AO noted that although you assert you suffered from a mental health condition, that pre-existed your enlistment, you did not provide any description of your purported symptoms which would meet the criteria for a mental health condition, indicate how those symptoms interfered with your ability to function, or describe any linkage between the symptoms and your misconduct.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the evidence does not establish you suffered from, or were diagnosed with, a mental health condition at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.  The AO was provided to you on 6 July 2021, and you were given 30 days to respond.  When you did not respond within 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention you have “had mental illness since [you] were a child” and need to receive your benefits so you can “see better doctors and even help [you] pay [your] bills and live a decent life.”  The Board also considered your contention that you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that you are “not in [your] right state of mind when sick.”  You further contend you should not be punished for “being a kid” because “kids mess up.”  Additionally, the Board considered your contention that you “didn’t do what they accused [you] of on purpose” but “it was a misunderstanding” for which you apologize “because what happened should not have happened.”  Further, the Board considered your contention you were drinking a lot because you were “kind of self-medicating.”  The Board also noted you did not did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents describing your character or post-service accomplishments to be considered for clemency purposes. 
 
Unfortunately, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service.  The Board, relying on the AO and applying liberal consideration, concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting clemency in the form of an upgraded 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 the 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,                                                                    
 9/1/2021
 Executive Director