Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5226 14_Redacted
Original file (NR5226 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TAL
Docket No: 5226-14
29 April 2015

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.

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

22 April 2015. The names and votes of the members of the panel
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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient

to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
9 September 1997. You served for a year and eight months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from 14 May 1999 to
29 July 1999, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two

occasions. Your offenses were failure to obey a lawful order and
wrongful use of marijuana.

Based on the information currently contained in your record it
appears that you were subsequently involuntarily processed for
separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. In
connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged the
separation action and the separation authority would have
approved a recommendation for separation. The record clearly
shows that on 13 September 1999, you were discharged with an

other than honorable separation by reason of misconduct due to
drug abuse.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion of suffering
with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case because of the seriousness of your
misconduct. Regarding your assertion of suffering from PTSD, the
Board noted that you did not provide a diagnosis and that the
severity of your misconduct outweighed the mitigation of your
possible diagnosis. Accordingly, your application has been
denied.

The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum on PTSD is to
ease the process for veterans seeking to upgrade an “other than
honorable” discharge based on misconduct with a Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) nexus and assist the Boards in reaching
fair and consistent results. The memorandum describes the
difficulty veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on
claims of previously unrecognized” PTSD. The Secretary explains
that since PTSD was not previously recognized as a diagnosis at
the time of service for many veterans, and diagnoses were often
not made until after service was completed, veterans were
constrained in their arguments that PTSD should be considered in
mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a
nexus between PTSD and the misconduct underlying their discharge.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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,

  

b

 

ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5226 14

    Original file (NR5226 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7812 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7812 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The policy specifically covers veterans who received other than honorable (OTH) discharges.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1220 14

    Original file (NR1220 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2015. The policy specifically covers veterans who received other than honorable discharges. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1220 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR1220 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2015. The policy specifically covers veterans who received other than honorable discharges. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5464 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR5464 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1813 14

    Original file (NR1813 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of your service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service, The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, Vietnam service , desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that your post service diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) contributed to your misconduct while on active duty. The policy specifically...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4626 14

    Original file (NR4626 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6699 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6699 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4376 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR4376 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 Aprii 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all macerial submitted in support thereof, your naval record, anc applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4376 14

    Original file (NR4376 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitiaating factors, such as your record of...