Docket No: 1351-20 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 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 5 April 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, including 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 requested and reviewed a 25 February 2021 Advisory Opinion (AO) from a mental health professional, your rebuttal to the AO, as well as a 25 March 2021 revised AO. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 16 January 1991. On 27 January 1993, you were convicted by a summary court-martial of larceny, failing to pay a just debt, and making a false statement. On 12 September 1994, you received nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence. On 9 November 1994, you were convicted by a special court-martial for possessing an unregistered firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and for assault upon a lance corporal. On 20 January 1995, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings, and you elected to exercise your right to an administrative board hearing. Your administrative board was held on 24 February 1995, and that board found that you committed a pattern of misconduct, that you should be separated, and that your characterization of service should be other than honorable. Your chain of command concurred with the findings of the board, and you were discharged on 9 May 1995. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Hagel and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to, your contentions you had a difficult upbringing, your father was verbally abusive, you dealt with mental health issues throughout your childhood, and you struggled to manage his moods and behavior. You further explained that you dealt with low self-esteem and intrusive negative thoughts, had trouble dealing with authority, suffered constant mood swings, and your school referred you to seek psychiatric services when you were sixteen. You provided evidence that, after your military service, you were ultimately diagnosed with Bipolar I with psychotic features and received treatment. The Board also considered your contention that you were a gay man during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’" era, which put you in constant fear that you would be discharged and you felt isolated and lonely, and that you witnessed discrimination and violence against gay men while in service. In connection with your contentions, the Board sought the 25 February 2021 AO. The AO carefully reviewed all of your contentions as well as all evidence that you provided in support of your petition. The AO stated, initially, that throughout your service, there “were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources.” The AO also opined that your “mental health condition would not mitigate his non-disclosure of previous mental health treatment (i.e., childhood psychiatric services).” Ultimately, the initial AO concluded that “the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” You provided a rebuttal to the initial AO. On 25 March 2021, the mental health professional provided a revised AO, which explained that, in your rebuttal, you “further provided documentation of a history of PTSD linked to [your] military service” and that records from one of your providers “indicated a PTSD diagnosis; however, they did not describe the purported trauma/symptoms which led to the diagnosis.” The revised AO also stated that you alleged that you had been accidentally shot while serving in Okinawa, but you “did not provide military medical records” of the purported gunshot injury, but that you did state in your “legal brief it occurred and contributed to [your] PTSD symptoms.” The AO concluded that this information, when coupled with information from your original application, results in the conclusion that “it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD during his military service and his in-service misconduct may be attributed to his PTSD.” Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief. At the outset, the Board disagreed with the revised AO in its finding that your in-service misconduct may be attributed to your PTSD. The Board reviewed your naval records carefully, and it did not find documents that support the assertions you made concerning the causation of your PTSD. Being shot on post while serving outside of the United States is considered a significant event, even if it happened by accident, and this event would be recorded in your official military personnel files or medical records. In addition, the Board did not find that you presented factual information demonstrating that your PTSD or other mental health concerns arose as a result of your service. In fact, the Board took note that, by your admission, you had significant mental health issues prior to joining the Marine Corps. The naval services screen for such mental health issues and there is no indication that you revealed these issues prior to enlisting such that the Marine Corps could make its own determination whether to grant you a waiver or decline your request to join the Marine Corps. The Board also considered your history of offenses, (a nonjudicial punishment, a summary court-martial, and a special court-martial), as well as the wide-ranging nature of your offenses, which included larceny, false statement, unauthorized absence, assault on a fellow Marine, possessing an unregistered firearm, and carrying a concealed firearm. Given the totality of the circumstances, the lack of evidence supporting your assertions, and the nature of the misconduct for which you were discharged, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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,