DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 2399-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by the Board on 21 September 1993. 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. 

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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 14 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 and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion 
contained in BCNR letter MLCS Docket No: NR20180002399 of 22 January 2019; a copy of 
which was previously provided to you for comment. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in November 
1973. On 1 October 1974, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for two specifications 
of unauthorized absence. Non-judicial punishment was again imposed on you for disobeying a 
direct order form a non-commissioned officer on 24 July 1975. You were convicted by a special 
court-martial on 17 May 1976 for unauthorized absence from your appointed place of duty. A 
second special court-martial convicted you on 3 January 1977 for two specifications of 
unauthorized absence that totaled 103 days. You were diagnosed with an anti-social personality 
disorder on 11 July 1977 during which you expressed your desire to leave the Marine Corps. 
Shortly afterwards, non-judicial punishment was again imposed on you for failing to follow a 
noncommissioned officer’s direct order. After being medically cleared for administrative 
separation on 18 August 1977, you were notified of administrative separation processing for 
frequent involvement with military authorities and waived your rights to an administrative 
separation board. As a result, you were discharged on 26 October 1977 with an Other than 
Honorable characterization of service. Post-discharge, you were diagnosed with phencyclidine 
(PCP) drug abuse in 1978, intermittent explosive disorder in 1982, and major depression in 1990. 
You were denied an upgrade to your characterization of service by the Naval Discharge Review 
Board on 21 September 1982 and this Board on 21 September 1993. In 1995, the Social Security 
Administration determined you were eligible for disability benefits due to your mental condition 
and personality disorder. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge, change 
to your reentry code, back pay for leave lost, service credit for lost time due to your unauthorized absences and confinement while on active duty, and restoration of lost paygrades due to your court-martial conviction. You assert that you suffered from a number of physical conditions including issues with your feet, wrists, and left knee. You also allege you were pushed to an Other than Honorable discharge by your chain of command. Finally, you argue that your post-
discharge mental health conditions should be taken into account. Unfortunately, the Board 
disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially 
concurred with the advisory opinion contained in BCNR letter MLCS Docket No: 
NR20180002399 of 22 January 2019. Specifically, the Board concluded there was insufficient 
evidence to form a nexus between your post-discharge mental health diagnosis and your 
misconduct. Absent evidence that your misconduct was influenced by a mental health condition, 
the Board concluded you were mentally responsible for your misconduct that formed the basis 
for your administrative separation from the Marine Corps and no liberal consideration. As a 
result, the Board concluded that none of the relief you requested regarding reinstatement of 
benefits related to your misconduct was merited. Additionally, the Board also concluded that 
you were ineligible for disability benefits based on your administrative separation for 
misconduct. After consideration of all the evidence, the Board found that the Marine Corps 
decision to administratively separate you for misconduct was appropriate in light of the three 
non-judicial punishments and two special courts-martial convictions. The Board considered the 
severity of the offenses, the impact on good order and discipline, and the administrative burden 
caused by your actions sufficient to support the decision to administratively separate you and 
issue you an Other than Honorable characterization of service. The Board noted that you were 
diagnosed with a personality disorder in 1977 but concluded that diagnosis was not sufficient 
mitigation to offset the multiple incident of misconduct. The Board also determined the 
diagnosis was not a bar to administrative separation proceedings for misconduct. Finally, the 
Board considered your history of mental health issues after your discharge but felt there were too 
many potential intervening factors to be able to reliably determine whether those conditions 
existed while you were on active duty. For example, your drug abuse of PCP, a drug that has 
strong psychoactive effects and links to other mental health conditions, was a potential 
intervening factor that could have led to exacerbation of your mental health conditions after your 
release from active duty. 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 issue(s) 
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 
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, 

3/18/2019