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

Docket No: 2026-17 
JUN 2 0 2018 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions 
ofTitle 10, United States Code, Section 1552. 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. Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered 
your application on 3 April 2018. 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, Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 22 August 
2017, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 July 1966. During the period from 4 October 1967 to 
17 July 1968, you received two non-judicial punishments (NJP) for two specifications of unauthorized 
absence (UA) totaling 17 days and breaking restriction. You were aiso convicted by special court 
martial (SPCM) of two specifications of UA totaling two days and breaking restriction. You were 
sentence to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, forfeiture ofpay and a bad conduct discharge 
(BCD). On 17 December 1968, the convening authority suspended the sentence for one year unless 
sooner vacated. On 19 February 1970, you received a psychiatric evaluation and were diagnosed with 
an Immature Personality manifested by impulsiveness and disregard for authority. As a result of the 
forgoing, you were recommended for administrative separation. Subsequently, you were notified of 
pending administrative separation action by reason of unsuitability due to a Character and Behavior 
Disorder. Your Commanding Officer recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge 
by reason of unsuitability due to a Character and Behavior Disorder. The discharge authority 
approved this recommendation and directed a general under honorable conditions discharge by reason 
of unsuitability. On 4 May 1970, you were discharged. 

Your contention that you suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 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. 

BUMED also reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an 
AO dated 22 August 2017, regarding your assertion of suffering from PTSD. The AO noted that you 
claimed you were assaulted in Guam by locals and kicked in the head numerous times. There was no 
documentation submitted to corroborate your claim. The AO also noted that you claimed that you 
had numerous missions in the jungle while serving in Vietnam for seven weeks, but you did not 
specify specific traumatic experiences. The AO noted that you received a psychiatric evaluation and 
the psychiatrist found no evidence ofpsychosis or neurosis, and diagnosed you with an Immature 

Personality manifested by impulsiveness and disregard for authority. The AO noted that on 9 March 
2012, the Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed you with 70 % service connected PTSD. On 15 August 
2013, a VA psychiatrist diagnosed you with PTSD. Documentation indicated that you had 
psychiatric and rebellious problems prior to service that you did not acknowledge on your enlistment 
examination. After enlistment, you displayed multiple acts ofmisconduct prior to your seven weeks 
in Vietnam. Finally, the AO noted that you did not specify the dates, locations, or circumstances 
surrounding you alleged traumatic experiences while in Vietnam. The AO concluded that there was 
insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had service connected PTSD which 
contributed to your misconduct. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the AO, VA rating decision, 
VA diagnoses of PTSD, letter for , your desire to upgrade your character of service 
and contentions of PTSD as a reason for your misconduct. The Board also noted that you failed to 
provide a rebuttal to the AO supporting your claim of PTSD to the Board. The Board concurred with 
the AO's statement that there was insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had 
service connected PTSD which contributed to your misconduct and discerned no impropriety or 
inequity in your discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at 
this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and 
material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director