DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2421-21 Ref: Signature Date 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 2 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 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). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health professional dated 2 May 2021, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 21 November 1973. On 14 May 1974, you were dropped from Aviation Structural Mechanic “A” School due to a combination of lack of academic ability, immaturity and motivation. On 16 January 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty, and willful disobedience of a lawful order. On 22 January 1976, you received NJP for two specifications of failing to be at your appointed place of duty. Additionally, you were counseled concerning your poor conduct, and the effect it could have on your retention and reenlist possibilities. On 18 June 1976, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 26 days, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and being disrespectful in language. On 19 August 1976, you received NJP for four days of UA, and you were notified of administrative discharge action due to frequent involvement. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to make a personal statement in which you requested an undesirable discharge “as soon as possible.” On 20 August 1976, your case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that you receive an undesirable discharge (UD) by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 19 September 1976, a staff judge advocate reviewed your case and found it to be sufficient in law and fact. On 20 September 1976, the separation authority directed that you receive an UD due to your frequent involvement with military authorities. On 23 September 1976, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct. 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 during your service. The AO noted that based on the available evidence, there is evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during your military service and your misconduct may be mitigated by your 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 the partially redacted documentation from your Community Access Board, Annual Review, with the Commonwealth of Department of Correction Treatment Center, and partially redacted Psychological and Psychosexual Evaluation (dated 2008) and Psychological Evaluation (dated 2011). Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors, including the documentation you provided, and AO, were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJPs, and SCM conviction 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, 8/10/2021 Executive Director