Docket No: 2921-21 
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 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.     
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 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, 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).  Additionally, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider dated 15 June 2021, which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 3 April 1990.  On 12 April 1990 and 15 October 1990, you were issued a counseling entry explaining the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  On 28 April 1992, you submitted a six-month humanitarian permissive temporary additional duty (TAD) request to go home and assist your grandmother during her chemotherapy treatments.  In June 1992, your request was approved.  On 9 September 1992, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) after your urine tested positive for an illegal substance which was identified as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).  On 12 November 1992, as a result of your misconduct, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct, drug abuse, at which time, you waived your right to consult with counsel and to a hearing at an administrative discharge board.  Further, you were notified of the commanding officer’s intent to recommend to the discharge authority that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service for misconduct, drug abuse.  On 29 January 1993, a staff judge advocate reviewed your administrative discharge and found it to be sufficient in law and fact.  On 5 March 1993, you were discharged with an OTH.   
 
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. 
 
As part of the Board’s review, 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 are dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and this diagnosis might have mitigated the misconduct that led to you receiving an OTH.  The AO noted your in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition nor was there evidence of in-service traumatic or life-threatening events that would have resulted in the development of PTSD.  The AO opined that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service or that 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions that you were dealing with PTSD that you obtained in the Gulf War and as a result of coping with your grandmother’s cancer diagnosis.  The Board noted you did not submit character letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined your misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO.  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 the 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,