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

Docket No: 6230-17 
MAR 08 2019 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the 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 three-
member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 1 November 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, applicable 
statutes, regulations, and policies, an advisory opinion (AO) from the Bureau of Medicine and 
Surgery (BUMED) dated 28 November 2017, and your response dated 18 December 2017. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 13 January 1975. You 
served for five months without disciplinary incident, but, on 20 June 1975, you received 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 
30 June 1975, a sample of your urine tested positive for phenobarbital, and you were placed on 
the Urinary Surveillance Program for eight weeks.  On 5 May 1976 you made a written request 
for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for three periods of 
unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 229 days. Before submitting this request, you conferred 
with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the 
probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. In support of your request, you 
submitted a written statement that you did not want to stay in the Marine Corps because you 
could not adjust to the military and had too many family problems to worry about.  While 
awaiting a response to your request you once again, on 15 June 1976, received NJP for for four 
additional periods of UA totaling 31 days. Your request was approved, and, as a result, you were 
spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge 
and confinement at hard labor. You were discharged on 25 June 1976. 

You request an upgrade to your discharge characterization on the basis that you suffered 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 of the Secretary of Defense's memorandum, 
"Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
Considering Discharge Upgrade Request 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. 

The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery also reviewed your request and provided the Board with an 
advisory opinion (AO) dated 28 November 2017 regarding your assertion that you suffered from 
PTSD and attention deficient hyperactive disorder (ADHD). The AO noted that you claimed, 
while on active duty, to have experienced several stressful and traumatic events, such as having a 
locked and loaded weapon pointed at you by a fellow Marine, being physically thrown onto the 
floor by your gunnery sergeant, witnessing a drill sergeant break the arm of a recruit in boot 
camp, and being given drugs by a drill sergeant for which you later tested positive on a random 
drug test. The AO noted that your medical record included a medical note that stated you had an 
immature personality that existed prior to enlistment, and that recommended you be 
administratively separated. The AO further noted that there was no in-service medical or 
administrative documentation to substantiate your claims of traumatic events while in the Marine 
Corps, and there were no in-service medical records that specified mental health symptoms 
consistent with PTSD. Moreover, you did not submit any post-service documentation that 
specified a diagnosis of PTSD. The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support 
your contention that you suffered from PTSD at the time of service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including the AO, your rebuttal, 
and your contentions that you were using drugs at the time you had PTSD and that you have 
moods swings and ADHD. The Board, however, concluded that these factors were not sufficient 
to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct, which 
resulted in two NJPs and which included periods of UA totaling over eight months. In regard to 
your contentions, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of 
public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they 
have properly discharged their official duties. Your allegations, which are unsupported in the 
record or by submission of documentation, failed to overcome that presumption. The Board also 
noted that you were extended significant clemency when your request for discharge in lieu of 
trial by court-martial for several offenses was approved. The Board concurred with the AO that 
there was insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had service-connected PTSD 
that contributed to your misconduct. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board, in 
its review, discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge.    

Regarding your concern about eligibility for healthcare, whether or not you are eligible for 
benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and you 
should contact the nearest office of DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. 
If you have been denied benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures established by 
the DVA. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. 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 the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. 

Sincerely, 




Executive Director