DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9643-19 Ref: Signature Date 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. 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 December 2001. your history of assignments reflects that after basic training at , you were assigned to duty as a Hospital Corpsman. Your last duty assignment and major command was at . Your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) states that you were discharged from the Navy on 30 December 2005, subsequent to a court-martial conviction for which you received a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You request an upgrade to your BCD, and ask that you receive an other than honorable discharge instead. You state that you were promised by a judge advocate (JAG) that you would receive an other than honorable. You also contend that you and 18 other Marines had too much to drink, ended up at the officers’ golf course in , and drove golf carts which caused damage to the lawn of the golf course. You state that you were the only one who was court-martialed. You also claim that you did not know that you were causing damage because it was pitch black. You ask that your service during Operation Iraqi Freedom be taken into consideration and contend that you have been diagnosed with service-connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are trying to get medical care. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your assertion of having been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD, your claim that you were promised an other than honorable discharge, your contention that you were treated inequitably in comparison to the 18 Marines who were involved in damaging the golf course, and that you lost your copy of the record of proceedings. 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,” 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.” The Board noted, however, that you did not provide any supporting information confirming a service-connected PTSD diagnosis. Furthermore, the Board considered that you do not appear to claim that your PTSD was a mitigating factor in your misconduct. Nonetheless, the Board reviewed your application to determine if liberal consideration should be applied to your request. The Board noted that misconduct such at that described by you (destruction of a golf course lawn while intoxicated) is not reflective of misconduct such as self-medication, challenging authority, or unauthorized absences which are more typically associated with PTSD. In the absence of supporting information establishing service-connected PTSD which impacted your ability to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Board determined that liberal consideration is not appropriate in your case. The Board noted that your service record does not contain a copy of your court-martial proceedings, nor does it contain specificity about your misconduct. The Board is not an investigative agency, and matters of fact that are not in your official record must be submitted by the petitioner. You also did not provide a Record of Trial or other supporting evidence to establish that you were treated unjustly or disparately in comparison to the Marines who were also involved in causing damage to the golf course lawn. The Board applied the presumption of regularity and relied on the information reflected on your DD Form 214. With the sentence of a BCD, your court-martial proceedings were likely reviewed on appeal prior to the execution of the discharge. Given that your DD Form 214 reflects a BCD, the Board concluded that you were afforded court-martial proceeding with an appellate review. The Board also found that you did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that you were misled by a JAG during your court-martial proceedings, nor did you provide information showing that you were unfairly singled out for judicial action. The Board concluded that you did not establish that your BCD is either erroneous or unjust. 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. Sincerely, 1/13/2020