Docket No: 125-20
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 19 March 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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).    
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 December 1982.  On 21 February 1984 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for sleeping on post during your flight line watch.  On 3 April 1984 you received NJP for the wrongful use of a controlled substance (marijuana).  The same day your command also issued you a “Page 11” warning documenting your drug use and stating any further deficiencies in performance and/or conduct could result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative separation under other than honorable (OTH) conditions.  However, on 18 May 1984 you received NJP for nine separate specifications of unauthorized absence. 
 
On 23 May 1984 you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  You waived your rights to consult with counsel, submit rebuttal statements, and to present your case to an administrative separation board.  Ultimately, on 19 June 1984 you were separated from the Marine Corps for a pattern of misconduct with an OTH discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.  
 
As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 4 February 2021.  The MD initially observed that the post-service mental health summaries you provided contained no clinical history attributing the origin or initial manifestations of any mental health disorders to your military service, or linkage to your in-service misconduct.  The MD noted that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a mental health diagnosis or psychological/behavioral changes indicating a mental health condition.  The MD also noted that you did not provide any evidence of an in-service mental health disorder, nor did you describe any psychological symptoms you experienced on active duty.  The MD further noted that while you contended you suffered from mental health issues, you did not provide any evidence of symptoms or traumatic events, or any connection to your misconduct.  The MD concluded by opining that the preponderance of available evidence failed to establish you were either diagnosed with or suffered from a service-connected mental health condition, or that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.     
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to:  (a) you have multiple post-service mental health diagnoses, and (b) you believe on active duty you had an undiagnosed medical issue that contributed to the behaviors leading to your discharge.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
In accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service.  However, the Board concluded that there was no nexus between any mental health conditions or their related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions or symptoms mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct was not due to mental health-related conditions or symptoms.  The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions.     
 
Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your overall active duty trait average in conduct was 3.70.  Marine Corps regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 4.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service.  The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your pattern of misconduct which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge. 
 
The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine.  Lastly, the Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH, and that your separation was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 
 
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,