Docket No: 3611-20 
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.     
 
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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (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 considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 24 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. 
 
You entered a period of active duty in the Marine Corps on 21 June 1973.  You received Nonjudicial punishment on 5 March 1974 for 2 specifications of Article 86, unauthorized absence (UA), for a 1day and 2 day period.  On 7 June 1974 you received your second NJP for a 23 day UA.  You entered into another period of UA from 15 June 1974 to 27 February 1975, and upon your return you consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.  On 25 March 1975 you were arrested for breaking and entering and petty theft, and placed in the hands of civilian authorities.  You were in another UA status during this time from 27 March 1975 to 6 May 1975.  The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed your administrative processing and found it to be sufficient in law and fact on 13 June 1975 and you were discharged on 3 July 1975 with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service. 
 
You contend you entered a period of UA in order to help your mother who was very ill at the time and on the verge of being evicted.  You state you tried to obtain a hardship discharge but the process was slow.  You further contend you suffer from PTSD which stems from your family emergency and from a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) you developed during a training incident where you were hit in the head with a pugil stick. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your contentions noted above, and desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board also relied on the AO in making its determination.  The AO noted  
that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of TBI or PTSD, or 
psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated PTSD, TBI, or another mental 
health condition.  The AO concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed or suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your multiple periods of UA, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
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, 

5/27/2021

Executive Director