DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAO, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6353-18 Dear 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2019. 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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the 17 October 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional, and your rebuttal statement dated 5 November 2018. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 10 May 1989. On 11 December 1989, you were counseled regarding substandard conduct and performance, failure to conform to military standards and regulations, sleeping in class, having an uncaring attitude and displaying disrespect towards two female Marines. From August 1990 to March 1991, you participated in received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty and On 24 March and 23 April 1992, you having a female sleeping in your rack during a routine barracks inspection. On 14 May 1992, you were counseled regarding your frequent involvement with military authorities, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 7 July 1992, you received NJP for operating a motor vehicle while on a revoked license, and possessing a base decal issued to another vehicle. On 7 December 1992, you received NJP for driving on base while your privileges were suspended. On 15 December 1992, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and a pattern of misconduct. Your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review, and the separation authority directed that you receive an other than honorable (0TH) discharge. You received an 0TH discharge on 29 December 1992. You request an upgrade to your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from unrecognized post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of your military service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum, "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," of the 25 August 2017 memorandum "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment," and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations." A qualified Navy mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding the assertion you were suffering from PTSD during service. The AO noted, in part, that your NJP for unauthorized absence and having a female in the barracks can be attributed to PTSD. It is reasonable that you would seek support from your girlfriend, especially if you were not feeling that your unit was assisting you. However, there is insufficient evidence that all of your misconduct can be attributed to PTSD. On 5 November 2018, your counsel submitted a statement explaining that the remaining misconduct could also be attributed to PTSD symptomatology as they were traffic-related offenses. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your PTSD diagnosis and the change in your behavior after deployment. The Board concluded these factors and assertions, however, were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your repeated misconduct, even after being warned that continuing to engage in such behavior would lead to administrative separation. Further, the Board concurred with the AO's statement that there is insufficient evidence that all of your misconduct can be attributed to PTSD and that those offenses that were not attributed to PTSD do not appear to be related to PTSD symptoms because they involve driving on suspended privileges and using another person's base decal instead of behavior indicative of anxiety, frustration or anger. Accordingly, the Board found no material error or injustice in the characterization of your 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 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.