DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5180-18 SEP 1 2019 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 application on its merits. A threemember panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 August 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, relevant portions of your naval record, an 18 December 2018 advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional, as well as applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 February 1990. On 19 June 1990, you received a written counseling for disobeying an order from a noncommissioned officer by leaving your appointed place of duty. On 13 December 1990, you were counseled for specifically failing to walk your post in a military manner and quitting your post to sit down. After participating in Operations You were sent to level III inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment. On 29 October 1991, you in July of 1991 you were evaluated twice for alcohol abuse. You were counseled for questionable moral conduct for socializing after working hours with other Marines' spouses. On 25 November 1991, you underwent another evaluation. You were determined to be a treatment failure and recommended for discharge. On 13 December 1991 , pursuant to your guilty plea, you were convicted at a special courtmartial of larceny for stealing a TV from a fellow Marine. On 29 June 1992, you were counseled for your failure to comply with your alcohol rehabilitation formal aftercare plan. On 11 September 1992, you were counseled that you were a level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment failure and that you were being processed for administrative separation. You elected to waive your right to present your case to an administrative separation board. On 4 November 1992, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable (0TH) characterization of service. Your contention that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 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 military mental health professional reviewed your contentions and the available records, and provided the Board an AO on 18 December 2018. The AO noted that you did not submit any clinical documentation or post-service treatment records to support a mental health diagnosis. The AO concluded that, without supporting medical diagnoses and records, there is insufficient evidence to attribute a diagnosis of PTSD to your military service, or your misconduct to PTSD. A copy of the AO was mailed to you on 19 December 2018, and you were given 30 days in which to submit additional information. When a response was not received, the Board considered your petition on the available evidence. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your contentions that your pattern of misconduct began shortly after returning from combat and are consistent with behaviors associated with PTSD, that prior to deployment you were squared away, that your unit embellished your counseling entries, and that you served at a time when there was a lack of knowledge about PTSD. In accordance with the above referenced memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that there was no evidence that you suffered from any type of PTSD while on active duty, or that any such mental health condition was related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. The Board also noted that larceny is intentional, premeditated conduct and is not excused by any mental health condition. Lastly, the Board noted that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average was 3.6 in conduct. Marine Corps regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 4.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious misconduct, which ultimately supported the separation authority's decision to issue you an 0TH characterization of discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no material error or injustice in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found that your disregard for good order and discipline and serious misconduct merited your receipt of an 0TH discharge. Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense's memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations" (USO memo). The purpose of the USO memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records "in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency." The USO memo sets clear standards and principles to guide boards in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief. However, even in light of the USO memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances and your serious misconduct, your request does not merit relief. 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 the 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 ofregularity 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.