Dear   
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 23 September 2018.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  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.  Consequently, your application has been denied.  
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability.  You assert your misconduct while in the Marine Corps was attributable to mental illness.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  First, the Board concluded you were mentally responsible for the misconduct that formed the basis for your misconduct.  Even though you were diagnosed with anxiety, alcohol abuse, and a borderline personality disorder in March 2004, the Board determined none these conditions prevented you from understanding your actions.  Second, based on the first finding, the Board found that you were properly convicted by a special court-martial in September 2004 and awarded a Bad-Conduct Discharge.  Based on your extensive history of unauthorized absences and other misconduct, the Board felt your punitive discharge sentence was appropriate.  Third, since you were issued a punitive discharge by a court-martial, the Board also concluded you were ineligible for disability processing.  Disability regulations direct that misconduct processing supersede disability processing.  So even if there was evidence that your diagnosed mental health conditions prevented you from performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating, the Board determined you were properly referred to court-martial for your misconduct.  Finally, the Board applied liberal consideration in evaluating whether you deserve relief based on your 
mental health conditions in 2004.  In the end, they determined your punitive discharge based on the court-martial conviction remains appropriate as your narrative reason for separation and characterization of service.  In their evaluation, the Board reached the conclusion that your years of unauthorized absences was not mitigated by the existence of your mental health conditions.  You were convicted by four courts-martial and one non-judicial punishment while you were not in an unauthorized absence status.  In the Board’s opinion, your misconduct was too serious to overlook despite applying liberal consideration to your case.   Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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.