Docket No: 4619-20 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 limitations was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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, 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 4 April 2021 advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health professional. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 August 2000. On 2 February 2001, you received nonjudicial punishment for a two-week period of unauthorized absence. On 28 January 2002, you received nonjudicial punishment for a one day period of unauthorized absence as well as disobeying an order. You received a written warning on 4 June 2002, and again on 28 August 2003, for negative performance. On 26 April 2004, you were convicted by a summary court-martial for use of marijuana. On 27 April 2004, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and your rights in connection therewith, and you waived your right to an administrative board. On 18 May 2004, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 11 June 2004, the separation authority directed your discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 23 June 2004, you were so discharged. In 2011, you submitted an application for review with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), in which you contended that you had a good record of service, that your discharge was unfair because you had an unfair trial, and that you suffered from PTSD. On 27 March 2012, the NDRB denied your application. 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 Wilkie Memo. In your petition, you explained that you were uninformed about the consequences of your actions, and you ask that your discharge characterization be reconsidered. You contend that you completed your contract and you fought to defend your country with your life. You also noted that you have PTSD or other mental health condition. In light of your assertions that related to mental health concerns, the Board sought, and reviewed, the 4 April 2021 AO. According to the AO, Although Petitioner claimed he suffered from undiagnosed PTSD, he did not provide any description of symptoms, which would meet the criteria for PTSD or other mental health condition. There is no indication in his military service record or his personal statement his misconduct was the result of a mental health condition. The AO concluded, “[b]ased on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with PTSD or a mental health condition, suffered from PTSD/mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by PTSD/mental health condition.” In review of all of your materials, the Board determined that the relief you seek is not warranted. The Board concurred with the AO’s finding that your misconduct may not be mitigated by your mental health condition. After careful review of your other contentions, the Board found that the information you provided was not sufficient to warrant relief. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, as well as a review of your overall service record, 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, 5/19/2021 Executive Director