Docket No: 2101-21 Dear Petitioner: 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. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 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 the 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 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 11 July 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 November 1979 after admitting to pre-service drug usage, specifically, marijuana. On 30 March 1980, you absented yourself from your unit until you were apprehended by civilian authorities on 2 April 1980. On 11 April 1980, you absented yourself again from your unit until you surrendered on 21 April 1980. Upon your return, on 24 April 1980, you were placed into pre-trial confinement awaiting charges at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM). On 14 May 1980, you were convicted at a SPCM for assault and two (2) specifications of unauthorized absence (UA). You were sentenced to forfeitures of $50.00 pay per month for one (1) month. On 28 June 1980, you were UA from your command until you surrendered on 10 July 1980. On 16 July 1980, you were UA once again from your command until you were apprehended by civilian authorities on 28 August 1980. As a result of your repeated misconduct, on 23 September 1980, you were informed of pending charges against you at a SPCM for two (2) specifications of UA, willful disobedience of an order, assault upon a Warrant Officer, and drunk and disorderly conduct. You subsequently submitted a request for Good of the Service discharge to escape trial by court-martial. On 8 October 1988, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed your request, determined it was sufficient in law and fact, and concurred with the discharge. On 14 October 1980, the discharge authority approved your request and directed discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. You were discharged on 17 October 1980 with an OTH characterization of service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. A qualified mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and this diagnosis might have mitigated the misconduct that led to you receiving an OTH characterization of service. The AO noted your in-service records revealed no endorsement of a mental health condition, nor did you provide any description of your symptoms or how those symptoms interfered with your ability to perform your duties. The AO further noted a psychiatric note indicating diagnosis of unspecified depressive and anxiety disorders, as well as chronic PTSD, which was related to a fight ten (10) years ago when you “killed another man”. The AO concluded that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish that 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. 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 that you are an alcoholic suffering from PTSD due to divorce and you received no counseling. The Board noted the psychiatrist’s evaluation you submitted for consideration and determined it failed to establish a connection to any in-service mental health condition. The Board further noted your incarcerated status and that you did not provide any post-service advocacy documents for clemency consideration. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors. Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO, specifically, the available evidence failed to establish that 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. 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, 9/14/2021 Executive Director