Docket No:  10265-17

Dear

This letter 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 4 February 2019.  The names and votes of the 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  In addition, the Board considered the 2 April 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to you and is enclosed, your undated rebuttal statement and additional documentation, and an updated AO dated 7 January 2019, which is also enclosed.
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 4 September 1958.  During the period from 6 October 1959 to 22 September 1960, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for having a rusty weapon, failure to be at your appointed place of duty, and unauthorized absence (UA).  On 14 December 1960, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 27 days of UA.  On 15 February and 28 March 1961, you received NJPs for UA.  On 30 June 1961, you were convicted by civil authorities of transporting a stolen vehicle.  On 30 June 1961, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the naval service due your misconduct.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review, and it was directed that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct.  You received your OTH discharge on 8 September 1961.

You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from unrecognized post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of your military 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 Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you were suffering from PTSD during your service.  The AO noted, in part, that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that your misconduct can be attributed to PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder.  Additionally, there are no medical records from your time in service to take into consideration, and there is no mention of any traumatic experience suffered within the context of your service.  There is insufficient evidence to support your contention that your misconduct can be attributed to PTSD.  For example, the 13 March 2018     Medical Group letter is from a doctor of internal medicine, not a psychiatrist or psychologist, and rather than rendering a diagnosis he restates that you told him that you suffer from PTSD due to your naval service.  On 14 May 2018, you provided an undated rebuttal statement to the AO, and additional clinical evidence of an initial psychiatric evaluation from May 2018, that diagnosed you with major depression from a single episode that was attributed to the death of your grandson in 2009, and that PTSD from a military event “may be possible,” but that your examining psychiatrist had no records to confirm that possibility.  On 7 January 2019, an updated AO provided to the Board by a second Navy mental health professional states, in part, that PTSD from a military event may be possible, but that again there are no records to confirm that possibility, and that you still had not submitted records with a diagnosis of PTSD.  The updated AO noted that your psychiatrist had listed a “rule-out diagnosis of PTSD,” which is not a “diagnosis” and indicates that further evaluation would be needed to clarify.  The updated AO concurred with the original AO.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, the statement from your wife, your assertions that you did not know until recently that you could apply for an upgrade to your discharge, that since your discharge you have overcome your alcohol problems, and that you had to sign a waiver with the CIA stating that you had minor injuries due to a field problem.  The Board concurred with the AO statements that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that you suffered from PTSD during your time in service which contributed to your misconduct.  The Board determined that the nature of your misconduct supported your OTH discharge.   

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 matters.  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,


Executive Director