DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1234-18 Dear This is in reference to the application for correction of your husband's 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, the application has been denied. Although your husband's 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 his application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered his application on 1 July 19. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your husband's allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Docwnentary material considered by the Board consisted of your husband's application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of his naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed 26 February 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified Navy mental health professional. Your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 16 March 1970. He served in from March 1971 through June 1971, and, upon his return, his mental health was evaluated in August 1971 . He was diagnosed with severe passive aggressive personality disorder. In October 1971, his Senator reached out to the Marine Corps regarding his mother's concerns over his possible suicidal behavior. His leadership responded that he had a good mental state and that he waived his overseas control date to return to by way of On 23 November 1971, he received nonjudicidal punishment (NJP) for operating a government vehicle without a valid permit. He served again in from May 1972 to February 1973. In January 1973, he was apprehended for heroin use and evaluated by medical staff. On 15 February 1973, he was convicted by a special court-martial for possession of heroin. He then embarked on a period of unauthorized absence {UA) from 14 August 1973 to 20 December 1974, when he was apprehended. On 12 February 1975, he submitted a request for an other than honorable (0TH) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 21 March 1975, he was discharged from the Marine Corps with an 0TH characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. Your husband requested an upgrade to his characterization of service. He contended that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PSID), and he asked that his Good Conduct Medal and active-duty service in be taken into consideration. His 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 Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," of 3 September 2014, and the "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, SexuaJ Assault, or SexuaJ Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. As part of the Board's review, a licensed clinical psychologist reviewed your husband's assertions and the available records, and issued an AO on 26 February 2019. The AO notes that your husband's personality disorder diagnosis cannot be attributed to military service, and that post-service medical records describing his symptoms and linking them to military service are required to render a medical opinion regarding PTSD. The AO concludes, however, that there is evidence that he suffered from a mental health condition during his military service, and that there is evidence that his misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition related to substance-abuse disorder. The Board carefully reviewed your husband's application under the Secretary of Defense's applicable guidance for Service members requesting an upgrade to characterization of service due to a mental health condition. The Board also considered your husband's Good Conduct Medal and the contributions he made in when determining whether an upgrade to his other than honorable discharge is warranted. The Board concurred with the AO's finding that your husband behaved atypically following his first tour in , and noted that his mental health likely impacted his in-service conduct. However, both the AO and the Board noted that your husband had an in-service medical diagnosis of personality disorder. The AO noted that his personality disorder cannot be attributed to his military service, as it describes lifelong character traits. The AO also noted that your husband was diagnosed with drug and alcohol abuse during service, and found that his substance abuse cannot be attributed to military service, as he reported that he began his use during high school. The Board took into consideration the AO's findings and determined that, although your husband did appear to have behaved atypically after his return from his behavior could have been due to alcohol or drug use or another non service related mental health condition. The Board concluded that-even taking into consideration your husband's awards and decorations, his sacrifice and contribution through his service in , his personality disorder, and his struggles with substance abus~there is insufficient evidence to determine that he struggled with service-connected PTSD or a serviceconnected mental health condition. The Board concurred with the AO in determining that his misconduct should be attributed to substance-use disorder, but concluded that the substance use disorder, like the personality disorder diagnosis, does not appear to be service connected. When making its determination that there is insufficient evidence to establish that your husband suffered from service-connected PTSD, the Board relied in part on the AO's review of the medical records submitted to the Board for consideration. There was no evidence provided to establish that he received a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board was sympathetic to the fact that your husband has passed and that it may be difficult to obtain medical records. However, if such a diagnosis was made prior to his passing, the Board noted that it would be useful information in determining whether an upgrade is appropriate. Absent such information, however, the Board concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine that his misconduct-which resulted in NJP and a special court-martial conviction, and which included a significant period ofUA-is mitigated by a service-connected mental health condition. Based on the evidence of record, the submissions to the Board, and the AO, the Board found that, at this time, Petitioner's in-service misconduct supports his 0TH characterization of service. 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.