DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1325-16 
JUL 28 2016 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, 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 three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 9 June 2016. The names and votes ofthe 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, Board regulations state that personal 
appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board determines that 
such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a 
personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 
record. 

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

You enlisted in the Marine Corps, began a period of active duty on 30 July 1979, and served 14 
months without disciplinary incident. Between 29 September 1980 and 14 February 1981, you 
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for drunk and disorderly conduct in 
public ~dan unauthorized absence totaling 28 days. During the same time period, you also 
were convicted by summary court-martial for dereliction ofduty, missing a restriction muster, 
and destroying five mirrors, property of the government. 

As a result ofan unauthorized absence totaling over 380 days, on 28 April 1982, you submitted a 
written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial. Prior to 
submitting this request you were afforded the opportunity to consult with a qualified military 
lawyer. Although you waived your right to counsel, you were warned of the probable adverse 
consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Subsequently, your request was granted and the 
commanding officer was directed to issue you an undesirable discharge by reason of the good of 
the service. As a result ofthis action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction 
and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. On 18 May 
1982, you were so discharged. 

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, post-service conduct 
and assertion of Post-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 no error or injustice was identified in your records and you submitted no evidence to 
support your allegations. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Your assertion of PTSD was 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 Requests by Veterans Claiming PostTraumatic 
Stress Disorder" of September 3, 2014. However, the Board concluded that the 
statement you provided was not enough to outweigh the seriousness of your misconduct. 
Additionally, you provided no evidence to support your assertion that PTSD may have existed at 
the time of your misconduct. As a result, the Board was unable to substantiate your claims of 
PTSD at the time ofyour misconduct and it was their opinion that the seriousness of your 
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 or other matter not previously considered by the Board within one year from the date of 
the Board's decision. 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 
Acting