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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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.  
 
A review of your record shows that you entered service with the Marine Corps in June 2011 before commissioning as a Judge Advocate in November 2014.  In the Fall of 2018, you engaged in a sexual relationship with a married woman that resulting in a report of misconduct and a recommendation for you to show cause for retention.  In response to the show cause recommendation, you submitted a resignation request in lieu of administrative separation on 11 December 2019 processing in which you admitted to your misconduct.  Your resignation request included a medical diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and an opinion that the PTSD contributed to your misconduct.  While awaiting a final decision on your resignation request, you received a fitness report that documented your performance between 1 June 2019 and 29 February 2020.  After a favorable endorsement from your Marine Corps chain of command, you were eventually discharged for misconduct pursuant to your resignation request.  Upon your discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs assigned you a disability rating of 50% for Unspecified Trauma or Stressor Related Disorder at 50%. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability or completion of required active service.  You assert that you were unfit for continued naval service due your PTSD and submitted your resignation after completing your required active service developing your condition.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.   
 
In order to qualify for military disability benefits through the Disability Evaluation System with a finding of unfitness, a service member must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a qualifying disability condition.  Alternatively, a member may be found unfit if their disability represents a decided medical risk to the health or the member or to the welfare or safety of other members; or the member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the member.  In your case the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of unfitness.  A review of your aforementioned fitness report ending on 29 February 2020 documents that you were rated as an “Exceptionally Qualified Marine” and ranked ahead of 11 of your peers.  In addition, you were described as an “exceptionally well qualified officer” and a “proven top-performer” while being recommended for promotion ahead of your peers.  The Board noted that this fitness report was issued almost two months after your PTSD diagnosis and over one year after you committed the misconduct that was influenced by your PTSD.  Based on this evidence, the Board concluded you were fully capable of performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating despite the existence of your PTSD symptoms.  Further, the Board found no evidence that your condition represented a decided medical risk or imposed unreasonable requirements on the Marine Corps to maintain or protect you because of your condition.  Based on these findings, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence shows that you did not meet any of the criteria for a finding of unfitness for any disability condition or a change to your narrative reason for separation to disability.   
 
Concerning your request in the alternative to change your narrative reason for separation to completion of required active service, the Board also concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support the change.  You were discharged from the Marine Corps based on your resignation request in lieu of administrative separation processing for misconduct.   The Board found no evidence that supports a finding that you were being processed for completion of your required active service at the time of your resignation request.  Therefore, the Board determined you were appropriately assigned “misconduct” as the narrative reason for your separation from the Marine Corps based on your request and admission of misconduct.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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,