DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2753-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was 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 limitations 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 September 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 considered a 10 August 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, as well as your rebuttal to the AO, which was also reviewed by the provider of the AO. You enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty on 2 November 1982. The paperwork relating to your separation is not in your naval records, but on 30 March 1983, you were discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation due to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct. You filed an application for review of your discharge with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), and on 21 April 1989, the NDRB found that there was no impropriety in your discharge characterization. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that your character of service should be upgraded to honorable because you suffered childhood abuse, which caused PTSD. You explain that other individuals in the Navy received accommodations for various matters, but you were not accommodated for symptoms relating to your PTSD. In connection with your assertion that you suffered from a mental health condition while you were on active duty, which served to mitigate you misconduct, the Board requested, and reviewed, the AO. The AO explained that, while you were in the Navy, you were evaluated by a psychologist, and that you were: diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with academic inhibition and mixed emotional features. The psychologist stated in his recommendation that the ‘clinical presentation was not in itself sufficient grounds for discharge, the prognosis for successfully completing training is poor.’ He clarified that, ‘His current level of adjustment, coupled with his past history of scholastic difficulty and lack of motivation for continued duty suggest he is a poor candidate for continued service.’ The remainder of the available records did not contain evidence of additional diagnoses of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated additional mental health conditions. Throughout his counselings and administrative processing, there were no concerns cited which would have warranted additional referral to mental health resources. Although he claimed PTSD, he did not cite any significant or debilitating psychological symptoms or behavioral changes due to a mental health condition that directly affected his military training. The AO concluded, “based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with PTSD or suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service, or his in-service record of poor academic performance was the result of an unfitting mental health condition.” You submitted a response to the AO, which the Board carefully reviewed, in which you reiterated how you believe you were treated unfairly. Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors that you raised were insufficient to warrant relief. With respect to your contention relating to a mental health condition, the Board concurred with the findings of the AO. The Board expressed sympathy with the difficulties that you explained that you have suffered in your life. But upon review of the guiding regulations concerning entry level separations, the Board found that there was no error or injustice relating discharge from the Navy. 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, 9/27/2021 Executive Director