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

Docket No: 6811-17 
JUN 2 0 2018 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title l0, 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 oflimitations 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 29 May 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record, Advisory 
Opinion (AO) dated 29 November 2017, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 May 1971. During the period from 28 May 1973 to 13 
May 1975, you received four non-judicial punishments (NJP) for the following offenses: three 
specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling four days and five hours, absent from 
appointed place of duty, willfully disobeying a base regulation, dereliction of duty, and conduct 
unbecoming of a non-commissioned officer (NCO). You were also convicted by special courtmartial 
(SPCM) of two specifications of assault, two specifications of failure to obey a lawful 
order, and wrongfully communicating a threat. On 30 July 1975, you submitted a written request 
for discharge for the good ofthe service to avoid trial by court-martial for assault and escaping 
from lawful confinement. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified 
military lawyer, at which time you were advised ofyour rights and warned of the probable 
adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your 
Commanding Officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for 
the good ofthe service. As a result ofthis action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial 
conviction, as well as the potential penalties ofsuch a punitive discharge. On 19 August 1975, 
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" of3 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 oftheir Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual 
Harassment" memorandum of25 August 2017. 

An Advisory Opinion (AO) also reviewed your request for correction to your record and 
provided the Board with an AO dated 29 November 2017 regarding your assertion ofsuffering 
from PTSD. The AO noted that you did not provide any administrative or medical documents 
which specified in-service traumatic events related to military service. The AO also noted that 
there was no in-service medical documentation that supports diagnosis of PTSD due to alcohol 
abuse. On 15 August 1975, your discharge medical examination was negative for psychiatric 
symptoms. Finally, the AO noted that you did not provide any post-service documentation and 
none is available in your record for review. Based on the preponderance of evidence, it was the 
AO's medical opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that you 
suffered from PTSD at the time of your service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the AO, your desire to 
upgrade your character of service and contention ofPTSD as a reason for your misconduct. The 
Board also noted that you did not provide a rebuttal to the AO supporting your claim of PTSD to 
the Board. The Board found no nexus between PTSD and your misconduct. The Board also 
concurred with the AOs 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director