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 9 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 professional, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the Kurta Memo; the 3 September 2004 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 18 July 2006. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history on 3 July 2006 both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 28 August 2007 your command issued you a “Page 11” counseling warning (Page 11) for an unauthorized absence (UA). The Page 11 expressly warned you that a failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation or judicial proceedings. You did not make a rebuttal statement to the Page 11. On 2 January 2008, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for a UA and insubordinate conduct. You were issued another Page 11 warning. On 13 June 2008, you again received NJP for a UA and for failing to obey a lawful order. You were issued a third Page 11 warning. On 3 October 2008, you were issued a fourth Page 11 warning for a lack of judgment, a lack of responsibility, tardiness, and for failing to qualify on the rifle range. On 9 February 2009, you again received NJP for UA and for failing to obey a lawful order. You were then issued a fifth Page 11 advising you that you were being recommended for administrative separation. On 25 March 2009, an administrative separation board (Adsep Board) was convened in your case. Following the presentation of evidence and witness testimony, the Adsep Board members unanimously determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported all of the misconduct alleged in the notification. Subsequent to the unanimous substantiation of your alleged misconduct, the Adsep Board members recommended that you be separated from the Marine Corps with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service, but further recommended that your GEN discharge be suspended for 12 months and you were retained on active duty. In the weeks following your Adsep Board, you reported to a new duty station on 27 April 2009 at. On 15 October 2009, you received NJP for a UA and insubordinate conduct towards two superior non-commissioned officers. On 15 October 2009, you were admitted to the inpatient psychiatric service ward at the to undergo a mental health evaluation, where you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, narcissistic and antisocial traits, occupational stressors, and lack of social support. The Medical Officer found you fit for duty, but determined you were not suited for continued service and recommended that you be administratively separated. Rather than vacating your suspended GEN discharge for continued misconduct, your command notified you on 19 October 2009 that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 20 October 2009, you consulted with counsel and expressly waived your right to present your case to an Adsep Board. In the interim, on 20 October 2009 you were readmitted to the NNMC inpatient psychiatric service ward and again diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with borderline and antisocial traits. In your written personal statement to the separation authority dated 22 October 2009, you stated, “I agree that I am not mentally and emotionally stable to handle the stress and duties as a Marine.” Ultimately, on 4 November 2009 you were separated from the Marine Corps for misconduct under other than honorable conditions (OTH) conditions and assigned a reentry code of RE-4. On 30 November 2010, the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that your OTH discharge was proper as issued and that no change to your characterization of service was warranted. As part of the Board’s review process, your application and records were reviewed by a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), who issued an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration dated 22 March 2021. The Ph.D. initially noted that you were found fit for duty but not considered suitable for continued service and recommended for administrative separation following your first inpatient hospital admission. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that your adjustment disorder symptoms may account for some, but not all, of your misconduct. The Board carefully considered each of your contentions of error or injustice. First, the Board found your contention that your separation was procedurally defective at the time of your discharge because you were not provided the opportunity to overcome your deficiencies to be entirely without merit. Administrative separation was not initiated against you until you had received NJP on three occasions and five Page 11 counseling warnings. This by itself represents far more opportunity than most Marines are afforded to overcome their conduct deficiencies. However, your first Adsep Board then granted you yet another opportunity to overcome your deficiencies by suspending your separation for 12 months. Unfortunately, you failed to avail yourself of this opportunity by receiving yet your fourth NJP for similar misconduct within the suspension period. The Board found that there was no rush to judgment in your case as your asserted, and you were provided ample opportunities to correct your behavior before you were administratively separated. The Board also considered your contention that your administrative separation was unfair because you were suffering from PTSD at the time. In this regard, the Board reviewed your contention in accordance with the guidance of the Hagel and Kurta Memos, applying liberal consideration to your contention that you suffered from PTSD at the time of your discharge and the effect that your mental health condition(s) may have had upon your conduct. Even applying liberal consideration, however, the Board found insufficient evidence that you were suffering from PTSD. Although your statement alone may, under certain circumstances, be enough to establish that such condition existed at the time, you provided no clinical evidence that you have ever been diagnosed with PTSD despite the Board’s request dated 4 June 2020 for any such documentation. You also provided no evidence or explanation of the traumatic event(s) from which such condition would arise. The Board also applied liberal consideration to your diagnosed adjustment disorder and any effect that it may have had upon your conduct. In this regard, the Board noted and agreed with the AO conclusion that your mental health condition may have mitigated some, but certainly not all, of your misconduct. Finally, the Board considered your contention that your discharge is inequitable today. In this regard, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances in accordance with the Wilkie Memo to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice. Among other factors, the Board considered your diagnosed adjustment disorder and any effect that it may have had upon your conduct at the time; the totality of your career to include your awards and commendations; that your Adsep Board recommended that you be separated with a GEN discharge; your contention that you have sought to lead a successful life since being discharged; the statements from your supervisors, co-workers and family attesting to your loyalty and good character; your relative youth and immaturity at the time of your misconduct; and the passage of time since your discharge. Even considering these potentially mitigating factors, the Board determined that relief is not warranted under the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, the Board found that the nature and quantity of the misconduct for which you were separated from the Marine Corps was so significant that it far outweighed any and all potentially mitigating factors. With regard to your contention that your discharge was an injustice because “clemency was never shown,” the Board believes that you were shown the equivalent of clemency by your first Adsep Board when they recommended that your GEN discharge be suspended. The Board also finds that “clemency,” as you characterize it, is not warranted under the totality of the circumstances. 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, 4/29/2021 Executive Director