Docket No: 0477-20 
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 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 29 March 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 an 8 February 2021 Advisory Opinion (AO) from a mental health professional. 
 
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. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 July 1977.  On 19 Oct 1978, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty.  On 18 January 1979 you again received NJP for wrongfully using marijuana and possessing marijuana.  You received NJP three more times for marijuana-related offenses.  On 12 September 1980, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing and your rights in connection therewith, due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  You elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge board.  On 9 October 1980, the ADB found that you had committed misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, and recommended that your discharge with an other than honorable characterization (OTH) of service.  On 16 October 1980, the discharge authority directed your discharge with an OTH service.  On 31 October 1980 you were so discharged.  In 2010, you petitioned this Board for an upgrade of your characterization of service.  On 30 June 2011, this Board denied your petition after carefully considering as mitigating factors, your youth, record of service, the reasons why you joined the Marine Corps, as well as your and post-service accomplishments. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your current petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Hagel and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to, your contention that you experienced emotional trauma that affected your ability to serve.  You believe that by the time you were discharged you were back on track.   
 
In connection with your contentions, the Board sought, and reviewed, the 8 February 2021 AO, which found as follows: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Although Petitioner contends he suffers from a mental health condition, he does not provide any details of symptoms, impact of quality of life, or clinical diagnosis. No evidence to support the claim of a mental health diagnosis has been presented. 
 
The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of available objective evidence fails to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” 
 
Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief.  The Board found the AO to be persuasive.  Accordingly, based on all of the facts and circumstances, 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,