DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1254-21 Ref: Signature Date 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 25 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 11 July 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 10 October 2000. On 13 June 2003, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence, failure to obey a lawful general regulation, and drunkenness; incapacitated for the proper performance of duties. Additionally, on 13 June 2003, you were issued an administrative remarks (Page 13) counseling concerning deficiencies in your performance and conduct; you were provided recommendations for corrective action, and informed that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and/or processing for administrative separation. On 28 May 2004, you were issued your second Page 13 counseling concerning deficiencies in your performance and conduct concerning failure to meet your financial obligations. On 7 July 2004, you received your second NJP for absent from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order by failing to attend Debt Management Class, and Make and utter to the Navy Exchange a certain check, in words and figures, for the purchase of miscellaneous items, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds for payment of such check in full upon its presentment for payment. On 8 July 2004, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy. You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer (CO) then forwarded your administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending administrative discharge from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The SA approved the CO’s recommendation and directed your OTH discharge from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. On 19 July 2004, you were so 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 July 2021. The AO concluded by opining that though your record indicated a diagnosis and treatment for Panic Attacks/Disorder (but not PTSD), the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered an unfitting mental health condition at the time of your military service, or your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your submission of supporting documentation and contention that you had an undiagnosed severe case of PTSD. Although treatment was being sought through the proper channels, your command decided to go after you with administrative action and remove you from service. You believe that you could have served your full enlistment and received an honorable discharge with an RE-1 code as you did post naval service in the Army National Guard. Unfortunately, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your service was appropriately characterized as OTH and you were issued the proper reenlistment code. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or changing your reenlistment code. 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 contentions as previously discussed and your desire to upgrade your discharge and change your reenlistment code. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined your misconduct as evidenced by multiple administrative remarks counseling warnings and two NJPs, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined 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, 9/13/2021 Executive Director