DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5243-20 1692-18 Dear Petitioner: 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 limitations 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 16 June 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 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 18 March 2021, which was previously provided to you. You entered a period of active duty in the Marine Corps on 25 October 1984. On 4 September 1986 you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence (UA) in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and insufficient funds for a check in the amount of $70 in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ. On 9 September 1986 you received a second NJP for disobeying an order from your company commander in violation of Article 91, UCMJ. You were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) on 18 February 1987 for a period of UA. You were in the hands of civilian authorities pending adjudication of a civilian preliminary hearing for felony charges from 23 March 1987 to 23 June 1987. On 7 April 1987, your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be administratively separated from the service. On 13 June 1987 the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found your administrative separation proceedings to be sufficient in law and fact. The basis for the discharge action was misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense: 2 counts of armed robbery, wrongful entry, and forgery. You were discharged on 13 July 1987 with an other than honorable characterization of service. Although your service record is incomplete, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers, and in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. Based on your DD Form 214 noting, “admin discharge board required but waived,” and the SJA’s review, the Board presumed you were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights. You contend you were separated based on civilian allegations that were pending at the time of your discharge and later dismissed after civilian authorities learned of your separation from the Marine Corps. You state you were told to return to Illinois and you received no probation, supervision, nor were assigned anyone to whom to report. You state your life then spiraled downhill, you were confused, suicidal, depressed, homeless, and struggled with your mental health. You further contend you were a victim in the civilian criminal courts and also that the record does not reflect that you became physically and mentally challenged. You also state you are a member of the Threshold Veteran’s program, were diagnosed with schizophrenia, and attend monthly sessions with your psychiatrist. 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 your desire to upgrade your discharge. In its deliberations, the Board noted that no evidence was submitted indicating that the charges in your civilian case were dismissed. The Board also relied on the AO in making its determination. The AO noted that although you provided evidence of a post-discharge diagnosis of schizophrenia, the onset of the diagnosis is not clear and it is possible the stress of the civilian pending charges and the discharge from military service were precipitating factors in your decompensation and onset of mental health symptoms. Accordingly, the AO concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish you were diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service, or your in-service misconduct could be mitigated by 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 two NJPs, SCM, and administrative separation processing, 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, 7/7/2021 Executive Director