DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9432-18 Ref: Signature date Dear 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although you did not file your application 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 three- member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 8 September 1997. On 30 March 1998, you were counseled regarding underage drinking and advised that failure to take corrective action may lead to administrative separation. On 31 March 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for underage drinking and awarded forfeiture of pay and restriction. On 25 September 1998, you were counseled that you were not recommended for promotion due to your NJP. On 30 December 1998, you were counseled that you were not recommended for promotion due to lack of maturity. On 29 April 1999, you received a second NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) and awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and reduction in rank. On 27 May 1999, you received a third NJP for breaking restriction and awarded forfeiture of pay and reduction in rank. On 15 July 1999, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to your pattern of misconduct. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review. Your commanding officer recommended that you receive an under other than honorable (OTH) conditions discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Marine Corps. On 18 August 1999, you received an OTH discharge. You request that the Board upgrade discharge so that you would be eligible to receive assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) like other Marines. You asserted that you were 22 years old and had right shoulder and right hip injuries that were extremely painful, so you began drinking to numb the pain and that resulted in you getting in trouble with the command. You stated that while home on leave you got a driving under the influence (DUI) citation and paid a fine in civilian court. When you returned to base, you received an NJP and were reduced in rank and lost pay, which further frustrated you and you continued drinking. Lastly, you said your command sent me to alcohol counseling, but not inpatient treatment. You expressed that you wished your command would have sent me to inpatient treatment and given you a chance. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs, two of which occurred after you had been warned about the potential for administrative separation. With respect to your contention that your command did not give you the opportunity for alcohol rehabilitation, your record contains information that refutes that contention. On 27 October 1998, you were initially screened by the Substance Abuse Counseling Center (SACC) after your DUI, and received a diagnosis of alcohol abuse. In November 1998, you successfully completed military outpatient alcohol rehabilitation and in January 1999, you completed court ordered alcohol rehabilitation. You were placed on an aftercare program that included weekly follow up with SACC for 12 weeks. You failed to attend those follow up sessions, and indicated you had resumed drinking alcohol in December 1998. On 4 June 1999, you were referred to SACC for rehabilitation following your NJPs for UA (because you missed range detail due to alcohol consumption) and drinking while on restriction. Your diagnosis was alcohol abuse, not in remission. You expressed to SACC that the NJP incidents were merely “bad judgment,” and stated that you did not feel that you would benefit from further alcohol education and counseling. At the bottom of the SACC notes you wrote: “I have read and understand the above statements and agree,” and you signed and dated the form. Accordingly, the Board in its review did not discern any probable material error or injustice in the discharge. Regarding your contention that you need DVA benefits, whether or not you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA, and you may contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. If you have been denied benefits, you may appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA. 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 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.