Dear ,  
 
This 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. 
 
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 case on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2020.  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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  In addition, the Board considered the enclosed 25 February 2020 and 28 February 2020 advisory opinions (AOs) furnished by the Senior Medical Advisor, Council of Review Boards (CORB) the Director, CORB, copies of which were previously provided to you for comment. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active-duty service in the Marine Corps in June 1979.  During your first enlistment, you were involved in a number of incidents of misconduct that resulted in the imposition of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions.  You reenlisted in November 1982 and commenced a second period of active-duty service.  You were involved in a motorcycle accident in 1983 during which you suffered a loss of consciousness.  In subsequent years, you were involved in at least three incidents of misconduct that resulted in the imposition of NJP.  Despite your misconduct, you were promoted to E-5 on 1 May 1988.  However, you were diagnosed with a personality disorder on 26 January 1989, which revealed a preservice history of alcohol abuse and aggressive antisocial behavior that included arrests.  Due to your diagnosed personality disorder and history of misconduct, you were recommended for administrative separation, and you were ultimately discharged on 31 March 1989.  Based on your post-discharge medical records, it appears you were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) many years after your discharge from the Marine Corps but denied a service connection by the Department of Veterans Affairs for PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). 
 
The Board carefully considered your contentions that your administrative separation from the Marine Corps was based on your underlying PTSD and TBI issues incurred while on active duty.  You assert that you would have qualified for placement on the disability retirement list had you been evaluated properly.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making its findings, the Board substantially concurred with the AOs.  Specifically, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence you were unfit for continued naval service due to PTSD or TBI.  The Board also relied on the fact the VA has not granted you a service connection for either disability condition.  Further, the Board was not persuaded by your argument that your misconduct was somehow related to PTSD and TBI since your medical record establishes a pattern of misconduct that commenced well before your entry into the Marine Corps.  Based on your preservice history, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supports your personality disorder diagnosis in 1989.  Based on that finding and the lack of evidence supporting unfitness, the Board found the evidence supports your discharge for convenience of the government due to your personality disorder.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
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. 
 
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, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  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.