Docket No: 5166-20/ 4679-19 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 13 November 2020. 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 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 9 November 2020. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 June 1974. On 22 November 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 1 November 1974 to 18 November 1974. On 18 June 1976, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of UA totaling four days, and sentenced to confinement, forfeiture, and reduction in rank. On 2 July 1976, you began another period of UA which lasted until 28 July 1976. On 14 August 1976, you began another period of UA and the record reflects you self-referred to a hospital in during this UA period and remained there until 7 September 1976. On 14 September 1976, the UA period ended when you were returned to military authorities after a brief stay in a military hospital due to an injury to your right knee. On 12 November 1976, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for the two periods of UA, and sentenced to reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 14 February 1977, the Officer Exercising General Court-Martial Jurisdiction (OEGCMJ) commuted your BCD to the lesser punishment of confinement at hard labor for a period of six months and then suspended the confinement for one year. However, in the interim, on 6 January 1977, you began another period of UA which ended on 20 June 1977 when you were apprehended by civilian authorities. On 3 August 1977, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the 164-day UA. Prior to submitting this request, you consulted a qualified military lawyer, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. After the staff judge advocate determined your request was sufficient in law and fact, your CO was directed to discharge you with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service. As a result, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. On 26 August 1977, you were discharged with an OTH character of service. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 9 November 2020. The AO stated you have been diagnosed with depression and may have a PTSD diagnosis which may be related to your military service. The AO also commented that the contrast in your service record between 1975 and 1976 is evidence of a behavioral change which may have indicated a mental health condition. The AO also noted your request for a hardship discharge. Based on the available evidence, the AO author concluded there is evidence you have a PTSD diagnosis which may be related to your military service and that much of your misconduct can be attributed to your mental health condition. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention you tried to get help from the Marine Corps for your mental condition but when they failed to help, you absented yourself and sought help on your own. Specifically, the Board considered your contention that you tried several times to get help from your command but they “just didn’t want to hear it” so you “went AWOL and admitted [yourself] into a mental hospital.” Based on your record and the AO, the Board considered the guidance in the Kurta Memo and found it is likely you have a mental health condition that existed during military service. However, the Board noted you do not describe an in-service traumatic event nor did the AO note one, and even applying liberal consideration, the Board was unable to determine when a traumatic event occurred during your military service. Applying liberal consideration and considering the AO’s statement regarding the stark contrast between 1975 and 1976, the Board noted you had a 17-day UA within less than five months of your enlistment and prior to being stationed in . The Board also noted that the OEGCMJ considered your situation and granted clemency in the form of commuting your BCD then suspending the commuted confinement sentence. The Board determined there is insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity and conclude that the Marine Corps erred, acted unjustly, or failed to provide you with assistance or appropriately consider your request for a hardship discharge. In the end, the Board concluded the severity and repetitive nature of your misconduct outweighed any potential mitigation from your mental health condition. The Board also considered your contention that you never submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial but noted the record contains your signed, and witnessed, request for discharge. Further, the Board considered your contention that you “never applied before 2019” and, noting that the record reflects a decision by the Naval Discharge Review Board in 1991, did not consider your statement to be untruthful nor did it influence its decision. 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions discussed above. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP, SCM, and SPCM 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,