DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No: 3816-17 

JUL 1 8 2018 


This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe 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 ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 23 May 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record, applicable 
statutes, regulations, and policies, and the Mental Health Advisory Opinion (AO), dated 
9 January 2018. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 22 March 1988. You 
served for seven months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 8 November 
1988 to 29 January 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on five occasions. Your 
offenses were failure to obey lawful orders, using disrespectful language toward a 
noncommissioned officer, and unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for periods totaling 33 
days. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation by reason of 
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct at which time you waived your procedural rights to 
consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ABD). 
Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by 
reason ofmisconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct. The discharge authority approved this 
recommendation and directed your separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct. On 3 March 1992, you were discharged. 


You request an upgrade to your discharge characterization on the basis that you were suffering 
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time of your military service. Your request 
was fully and 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 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 of25 August 2017. 

A qualified mental health professional also reviewed your request for correction to your record 
and provided the Board with an AO dated 9 January 2018, regarding your assertion of suffering 
from PTSD. The AO noted that your in-service medical record did not provide any in-service 
medical or administrative documentation to corroborate your assertion of PTSD. Further, no 
post-service medical documentation to substantiate the claim of PTSD was provided. The A0 
concluded that "based on the available records provided, it is my considered medical opinion 
there is insufficient evidence to support contention that he had PTSD while in
service which contributed to his misconduct." 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and your contentions that you experienced getting adjusted to garrison duty after 
your combat tour, the death ofyour grandfather, that you would like the Board to consider your 
Good Conduct Medal that you received prior to your discharge, and that you were experiencing 
symptoms of PTSD contributed to your misconduct. The Board concluded these factors were 
not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness ofyour repeated 
misconduct that resulted in five NJPs and periods ofUA totaling over a month. In regard to your 
contentions the Board was sympathetic to the loss ofyour grandfather, but noted there was 
nothing in your record and you did not provide any supporting documentations to show that your 
adjustment issues and grief could not be resolved through standard military channels. Further, 
the notation on your Certificate ofDischarge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214), does 
not show that you received a good conduct medal, but only sets forth the starting date for the 
next period ofthe award. The commencement date notation is the date you received your last 
NJP and you would have had to serve three years without any NJP, disciplinary infractions, or 
court martial offenses (The Good Conduct Medal is awarded to any active-duty enlisted member 
who completes three consecutive years of honorable service without any NJP, disciplinary 
infractions, or court martial offenses. Ifa service member commits an offense, the three-year 
mark resets and a service member must perform an additional three years ofservice without 
having to be disciplined, before the Good Conduct may be awarded). 

Finally, the Board concurred with the AO statement that there is insufficient evidence to support 
the claim of PTSD and concluded the information in your service record and statements you 
provided were not enough to substantiate your claim of PTSD at the time of your misconduct. 
The Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in the 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,