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 30 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, 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). The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. Following a brief period of service in the Army National Guard (ANG) in 1997, you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 August 1998. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history on 11 August 1998 both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 18 August 1999 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) lasting 17 days and for the wrongful possession of a controlled substance. A portion of your punishment was suspended. You did not appeal your NJP. On 2 September 1999 your command issued you a “Page 11” counseling warning (Page 11) for being UA while in civilian custody, marijuana possession, and breaking restriction. The Page 11 expressly warned you that a failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation or limitation on further service. You did not submit a rebuttal statement to the Page 11. On 16 November 1999 the suspended portion of your NJP was vacated and enforced due to continuing misconduct. On 20 January 2000 you were convicted at a Summary Court-Martial of UA lasting 45 days and breaking restriction. As punishment you were sentenced to 30 days of confinement. On 22 February 2000 you were notified of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You consulted with counsel and elected to waive your rights to submit a written statement on your behalf and to present your case to an administrative separation board. Ultimately, on 28 March 2000 you were discharged with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. On 5 February 2015 the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that your OTH discharge was proper as issued and no change was warranted. As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a medical doctor and Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (MD), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 11 March 2021. The MD initially observed that you did not provide a description of your psychological symptoms or behavioral changes due to your PTSD, an account of traumatic incidents leading to his PTSD, or any in-service or post-discharge evidence of a PTSD diagnosis. The MD determined that your in-service records did not contain evidence of mental health conditions or psychological/behavioral changes indicating PTSD or other mental health conditions. The MD noted that there was no indication in your service record or personal statement about being exposed to a primary or secondary trauma. The MD also noted that throughout your military service, disciplinary actions, and administrative processing, there were no indications of mental health conditions requiring referral to mental health resources. The MD concluded by opining that the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with PTSD, suffered from PTSD or other major mental health condition on active duty, or that your misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other major mental health conditions. 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 your assertions that: (a) you were dealing with major hearing issues due to the rifle and grenade ranges, and being in the ANG field artillery, and (b) you were suffering from PTSD. 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 conditions or symptoms were 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. Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from the Board on 10 March 2020 to specifically provide additional documentary material. Even if the Board assumed that your pattern of misconduct was somehow attributable to any mental health conditions, the Board unequivocally concluded that the severity of your misconduct far outweighed any and all mitigation offered by such mental health conditions. The Board also concluded 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 was 3.05 in conduct. 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 serious misconduct which justified your OTH characterization of discharge. 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 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. 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 pattern of serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH. 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, 5/5/2021 Executive Director