Docket No: 8358-17/11091-15 Dear This letter is in reference to your latest reconsideration request dated 13 January 2017. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) in 1999, 2014, and 2015, and were advised by correspondence that those respective applications had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335. F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 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. Your request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 22 January 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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, and an advisory opinion (AO) dated 24 November 2017. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. After careful and conscientious consideration of the record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including the rebuttal to the AO, your 7 October 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) diagnosis, Progress Notes from the DVA Medical Center, Progress Notes from the DVA Medical Center, your prior statements to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your letters of recommendation, as well as your contention that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of your Marine Corps experience, which contributed to your misconduct. Your contention that you suffered from 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. Your DVA records date back to 2014 and indicate that on 7 October 2015 (45 years after your 1970 discharge), you were diagnosed with alcohol abuse (in remission for 20 years) and PTSD as evidenced by your “symptoms of anxiety associated with [your] time in the military as well as experiences subsequent to that.” Your 28 May 2014 Progress Notes indicate, in part, that you told the psychiatrist that you participated in ambushes, foot patrols, and riverine operations. Your 25 November 2014 Progress Notes indicate, in part, that you told the psychiatrist that you “participated in heavy combat while stationed in.” In contrast, your statements to the NDRB in 1981, at which you were represented by counsel, omit any mention of combat and instead focus on your childhood difficulties, having quit school, and having enlisted at age 17. Similarly, in your 1981 personal statement to the NDRB, you explained that your incidents of UA and misconduct, prior to your deployment to, were due to family problems and that “[n]o way should [you] have been allowed to go to, even if [you] wanted to do so.” Your naval record indicates that you deployed to the combat zone of, from 19 September 1969 to 19 August 1970, in general support of counter-insurgency operations. Your naval record does not reflect your direct participation in any hostile engagements. Your naval record reflects instead that, in, you served five months as a rifleman with the. Due to your poor performance, on 2 March 1970, you were transferred to Air Base as a guard. In your statement to the NDRB you said that you served as a “sentinel” in the “inner perimeter.” Your superior officer stated that your tour with the squadron was “unreliable and inefficient,” that you were found sleeping on post a number of times, that your attitude was “very bad,” and that you did not seem to care about your duties. The NDRB noted that your 27 April 1970 medical record indicates that you were “disenchanted” with your superior officer, the regimentation of the Marine Corps, and “having to take orders.” The NDRB noted that your record of service included “one instance of [NJP] and five summary courts-martial involving eleven separate offenses of record . . . during a period of service of less than 28 months in duration.” The NDRB found no causal nexus between your background and your record of service. Regarding your current claim, there is no post-service medical documentation from 1970 to 2014. In-service medical notes dated 20 June 1970 document a facial injury due to an altercation on base in which you were “jumped.” Your discharge medical examination dated 27 October 1970 is negative for psychiatric signs or symptoms based on the responses you provided to your examining physician at the time. There are no in-service medical records that support diagnosis of PTSD or alcohol abuse. A Navy mental health professional also reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO dated 24 November 2017, regarding your assertion that you suffered from PTSD. The AO noted that you contended that you had a drinking problem while in due to trying to self-medicate for PTSD. You previously stated to the NDRB, however, that you began drinking heavily in because you were “getting disturbing letters from home at the time” and drank more to help you “forget.” The AO thus concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that you had PTSD at the time of service which contributed to your misconduct. In accordance with the guidance, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record and the documentation you provided. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence of PTSD at the time of your misconduct. The Board also noted and gave due consideration to the rebuttal to the AO that you provided in support of your claim of PTSD. The Board was unable to substantiate your claims of PTSD at the time of your misconduct, and it was their opinion that the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would be offered by PTSD or a PTSD-related illness. The Board also noted that the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions. 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 matters. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In the absence of new matters, 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 of appropriate jurisdiction. 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