Docket No: 9463-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
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 29 January 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 14 December 2020.   
 
The Board determined your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 25 September 1979.  After serving honorably during your initial enlistment, you reenlisted on 26 February 1983.  On 18 April 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order by drinking 12 hours prior to duty.  On 28 April 1986, you received NJP for wrongfully operating a motor vehicle onboard the base while intoxicated.  On 6 November 1986, you were convicted by special court-martial for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, larceny, wrongful appropriation of a vehicle, and unlawfully breaking and entering the dwelling of a corporal with intent to commit larceny.  You were sentenced to confinement, forfeiture, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review.  On 5 October 1987, you were discharged. 
 
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 14 December 2020.  The AO stated that your in-service records do not contain evidence of a mental health condition other than substance abuse.  The AO further stated that post-discharge clinical assessments reference several instances of head trauma, but there is no record of a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) or residual symptoms stemming from a TBI in your military records nor in your post-discharge clinical records.  The AO further stated you submitted post-discharge evidence of a PTSD diagnosis but noted the documentation for the evaluation with the mental health provider ended without discussion of symptoms experienced while in the military, relationship to in-service misconduct, or any diagnoses or assessments from the evaluation.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that despite carrying a post-service diagnosis of PTSD, there is insufficient evidence you incurred PTSD as a result of military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was provided to you on 15 December 2020 and you were given 30 days to respond.  When you did not respond within 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that stress and anxiety caused you to behave in ways you would not have behaved had you been “of sound mind and body.”  Specifically, you contend your “first tour of duty had me mentally, physically, and psychologically drained” and you “did not know, nor did I fully comprehend the changes that I was encountering.”  You further contend that “nothing was recorded” during your first tour of duty because you were advised to “maintain and suppress as much pain and torture as allowable to show endurance, display strength, show a lack of weakness, to be one who feared no one, nothing, and no circumstance…”  The Board also considered your contention that PTSD was just starting to be “slightly recognized” and “medicating our problems in the Marine Corps was a learned behavior.”  The Board noted your explanation that although your first tour of duty was not “boots on the ground” in a foreign country, you were required to remain on high alert 24/7 for “unforeseen terrorist attacks.”  The Board further noted your statement that “socializing outside of the Marines I worked with” was not allowed and this allowed “paranoia to set in” because you didn’t know “who to trust and who not to trust.”  Additionally, the Board considered your contention that your discharge was inappropriate because your friend said you could use his car, and being young and scared, you “took the discharge as I was threatened with severe punishment if I did not take the charge.”  You further contend your involvement in a bi-racial relationship influenced your “upper chain of command’s decision.”   The Board, applying liberal consideration, relying on the AO, and noting you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters for consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or granting clemency in the form of an upgraded 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions discussed above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined your conduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  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 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,