DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 1566-20 
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 limitations 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 14 May 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) Headquarters Marine Corps, an 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 originally enlisted in the Marine Corps on 23 April 1973. Your pre-enlistment medical examination on 13 February 1973 and self-reported medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. 

On 28 September 1973 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated after 136 days on 11 February 1974. On 27 March 1974 you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial for your long-term UA. At the end of your active obligated service, on 5 September 1977 you were discharged from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN) characterization of service and assigned an RE-1A reentry code. Your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), indicates that you are entitled to the   
following awards: Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Sharpshooter Badge for both rifle and pistol. 

On 29 April 2020, Headquarters Marine Corps, Military Awards Branch (HQMC) issued an AO concerning your entitlement to certain awards. HQMC concluded after reviewing all available evidence that you are entitled to the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, and Pistol Sharpshooter Badge. HQMC found no evidence to substantiate your entitlement to the Purple Heart Medal (PH). 

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 23 March 2021. The MD initially observed that your military records did not contain any evidence of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes indicating a mental health condition. The MD determined that throughout your active duty service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, as well as during your separation physical, there were no concerns cited warranting referral to mental health services. The MD also determined that although you claimed you suffered from undiagnosed PTSD, you did not provide any active duty or post-discharge clinical records describing any PTSD symptoms or any mental health conditions linked to your active duty misconduct. The MD concluded by opining that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, or that your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by 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 Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) you suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and harassment due to not reenlisting, (b) you believe you weren’t given an honorable discharge and your awards because you didn’t reenlist, and (c) you suffered from PTSD due to your active duty service because you were unprepared for your military experiences. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 

In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, 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 convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health condition was related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related 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. 

The Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious as to deserve a discharge upgrade and determined that Marines should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. The Board determined that characterization under GEN conditions is appropriate when an enlistment includes an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. 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 during your enlistment clearly merited your receipt of a GEN. 

Within the Department of the Navy, to qualify for the PHM, the wound received has to be the direct or indirect result of enemy action, and such wound also required treatment by a medical officer at the time of injury. Both criteria must be met to be awarded the PHM. The term medical officer is defined by the Department of Defense as a physician of officer rank. The Board, in its review of the entire record and petition, considered your contentions as specifically outlined in your personal statement accompanying your petition. However, the Board unanimously determined, even after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to you, that you do not meet the qualifying criteria to receive the PHM. The Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record that you were injured under conditions for which the PHM can be authorized, namely, that you received a wound resulting from enemy action, and that the wound necessitated treatment by a medical officer at the time of injury. Accordingly, the Board concurred with the AO and concluded that you did not meet the baseline eligibility criteria for the PHM. 

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, 
5/26/2021 

3