Docket No: 1884-21 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 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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). Additionally, The Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 30 July 2008. On 28 October 2009, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for drunken operation of a vehicle. On 4 November 2011, you received a second NJP for drunken and reckless operation of a vehicle. On 9 January 2012, you were discharged on the basis of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure and received a general characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. Following your discharge, you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NRDB) for an upgrade to your characterization of service and contend that your discharge was inequitable due to your suffering from PTSD. NDRB noted that you submitted Veterans Affairs documents which documented PTSD, Major Depression and Alcohol use disorder post separation. The VA records show that your alcohol use continued despite treatments as evidenced by multiple hospitalizations for alcohol induced atrial fibrillation. The NDRB found that the evidence of the record did not show that PTSD was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse your conduct or accountability concerning your actions. NDRB concluded that PTSD did not mitigate your misconduct and found that the discharge was proper as issued. In your application to the Board, you request that your general discharge be upgraded to reflect an honorable characterization and that your narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” You state that NDRB failed to adequately consider your severe PTSD symptoms when reviewing the events leading to your discharge. On 12 January 2010, was struck by an earthquake. You state that as a crewmember onboard the , you participated in humanitarian operations in support of the recovery efforts in. You describe your support in detail and state that you were exposed to trauma and suffering and that you began to drink a lot more. You further state that it worsened when you were deployed to . After you were discharged, you started having thoughts about your experiences in You experienced flashbacks and were ultimately diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs as having PTSD, with a 70% disability rating effective 10 June 2016. As part of the review process, a Medical Advisor reviewed your request, and issued an AO dated 26 May 2021. The AO noted that your misconduct in 2009 predated the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The AO found that the available objective evidence indicated that you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during your military service and some of your misconduct may be mitigated by your mental health condition. The Board also 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 assertion that you received commendations for your performance prior to 2010 and your claim that the experiences in mitigated the misconduct (to include the second alcohol related incident documented by your 2011 NJP) that led to your discharge. The Board substantively concurred with the determinations of the AO and determined that your misconduct following the January 2010. Earthquake was mitigated by the mental health condition from which you likely suffered following your exposure to the trauma during humanitarian efforts in . However, the Board noted that you hold a general characterization of service, which is not adverse. The Board took into consideration the findings of NDRB, the AO’s conclusions, and the information in your service record and application, and concluded that based on the totality of information, a general characterization of service is appropriate. The Board found that while the mental health condition mitigated your second instance of in-service misconduct, it did not absolve you from complete accountability for your in-service behavior. The Board concluded that a general characterization of service accurately accounts for the mitigation of the mental health condition and for your misconduct. 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, 9/2/2021 Executive Director