DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 0048-21 
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 21 July 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 10 May 2021, which was previously provided to you. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 September 1989. During the period from 4 December 1990 to 16 April 1991, you received four instances of non-judicial punishment (NJP). Your offenses were wearing dungarees off base, unauthorized absence on seven occasions and absence from your appointed place of duty. On 18 April 1991, you were convicted by civilian authorities of driving while intoxicated. 

On 23 May 1991, 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 20 November 1991, 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 10 May 2021. The AO noted that in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. The AO concluded by opining that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition. 

The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were 20 years old at the time dealing with undiagnosed mental issues. You contend that if you had the proper treatment that was required and were taught the proper coping mechanisms, you learned as an adult, you would have treated the situation entirely different. 
Additionally, you have been married for 28 years, you have been a tax-paying adult for over 28 years, you have never been arrested, and you have always looked to improve yourself and do better. 

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. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your 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 contentions as previously discussed and your desire to upgrade your discharge. 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 four NJPs and civilian conviction, 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, 
8/5/2021