DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 13 April 2016. The names and votes ofthe member ofthe 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 6 August 1965. You 
served for six months without disciplinary incident, during the period from 22 March 1966 to 
26 April 1968; you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on I 0 occasions and were convicted 
by courts-martial on two occasions. Your offenses were failure to obey a lawful order, using 
disrespectful language, failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, sleeping on post, 
unauthorized absence (UA), destruction of government property, assault, and breaking 
restriction. On 29 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) ofwillfully 
disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer. The sentenced imposed was 
confinement, a forfeiture ofpay-and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). While you were awaiting 
final appellate review ofyour BCD, you were again convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) 
for A 17 day period ofUA. On 13 December 1968, appellate review was complete and you were 
discharged with a BCD. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your character of service and assertion ofpost
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board 
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because ofthe 
seriousness ofyour repeated misconduct that resulted in 10 NJPs, two SCMs and two SPCMs, 
and that you did not provide sufficient evidence ofan error or injustice to support your claim. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Your assertion ofPTSD was carefully considered by the Board in light ofthe Secretary of 
Defense's Memorandum "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PostTraumatic 
Stress Disorder" of September 3, 2014. The memorandum recognizes that these 
Boards are not investigative bodies, but provides supplemental guidance to assist the Boards in 
reaching fair and consistent results when considering whether medical or other evidence 
indicates PTSD may have contributed to or mitigated the circumstances of a veteran's discharge 
from the military. However, the Board concluded the information in your service record and 
statement you provided was not enough to substantiate your claim ofPTSD at the time of your 
misconduct. The Board further concluded that, even if PTSD existed at the time of your 
discharge, the seriousness ofyour misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would be offered 
by the PTSD. 

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 and material 
evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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, 

Executive Director