DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8923-17 Ref: Signature date This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2019. 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy Mental Health professional dated 21 February 2019, which was previously provided to you and is enclosed. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 12 October 1979. On 21 May 1980 and 9 April 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for misbehavior of a sentinel and four instances of being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 13 November 1981, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of unauthorized absence from morning clean-up and possession of marijuana. On 6 May 1982, you were convicted by SPCM of disobeying a lawful order to be clean shaven, and being disrespectful in language. On 10 June 1982, you command conducted an informal inquiry to determine your fitness of retention in the Marine Corps. It appears that you were notified of administrative discharge action because on 30 June 1982, you signed an acknowledgement of rights statement waiving your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 6 July 1982, you case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 29 July 1982, a Staff Judge Advocate found your case sufficient in law and fact. On 2 August 1982, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge. You received your OTH discharge on 6 August 1982. You requested an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service. Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of, the 25 August 2017 memorandum “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards 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,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.” A qualified Navy mental health professional reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from a mental health condition during your service. The AO noted, in part, that in during your discharge physical, you denied experiencing mental health symptoms including depression, nervous trouble, or difficulty sleeping. You did not submit post-service treatment records. There is no evidence that you experienced a mental health condition during your military service. While experiencing racism can result in stress, and the potential development of a mental health condition, there is no evidence that you received a mental health diagnosis during or post-service. There is insufficient evidence that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service or that your misconduct should be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, your desire to upgrade your discharge, that you served your country, you had only two months left on your enlistment, your assertions that due to the era of our country and your age, you signed what you were told to sign, you were not sent to counseling or a metal health evaluation, you enlisted because you loved the Marine Corps, and there was a lot of race relation issues during that time in our country. The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant changing your characterization of service given your misconduct which resulted in two NJPs, and two convictions by SPCM, one of which was included the possession of marijuana. Further, given your mental health evaluation in the service, the Board concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence that you suffered from a mental health condition during your military service or that your misconduct should be attributed to a mental health condition. With regard to race relation issues, there was no information in the record and you provided none that supported your contentions. With regard to the statement that you signed what you were told to sign, your acknowledgement of rights statement specifically stated that you understand your rights, and in the absence of further evidence, the presumption of regularity applies to your official record, indicating that you understood your rights at the time. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 6/10/2019