Docket No: 9744-18 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 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 three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the 3 June 2019 advisory opinion furnished by a Navy mental health professional. The AO was provided to you on 4 June 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. On 5 March 1961, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps after serving approximately three years of active duty service. From May to September 1961, you had five letters of indebtedness from three different businesses, including clothing, gas, and jewelry. In October 1961, you failed aviation structural mechanic school due to “lack of interest or application.” On 18 October 1961and 2 November 1961, you were convicted by civil authorities of reckless driving, disregarding a red light, and striking a parked vehicle. On 7 December 1961, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 22 days, possession of an unauthorized military identification card, and breaking restriction. On 27 June 1962, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by SPCM of UA, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and being found drunk while being a member of the duty section. From November 1961 to February 1963, you had 11 letters of indebtedness from five different businesses, including jewelry, cleaners, garage, finance, and clothing. On 9 April 1963, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to be at your appointed place of duty. In July 1963, three additional letters of indebtedness were issued. On 6 August 1963, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by SPCM of two periods of UA totaling 12 days, failing to be at your appointed place of duty, and seven specifications of writing worthless checks. You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade, confinement at hard labor, which was suspended for six months, a forfeitures of pay, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD). On 26 August 1963, the convening authority approved the confinement at hard labor, the forfeiture of pay and your reduction in paygrade only. On 25 September 1963, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded a recommendation for you to receive an undesirable discharge due to unfitness, noting that, since your reenlistment you had to date “lost 203 days due to unauthorized absence and confinement.” After being afforded your procedural rights, an administrative discharge board recommended that you receive an undesirable discharge due to unfitness. However, on 24 October 1963, your commanding general directed that you be retained in the Marine Corps. On 6 February 1964, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by civil authorities of nine charges of issuing worthless checks. You were sentenced to 270 days of confinement in jail. On 12 March 1964, your commanding officer forwarded a recommendation to the separation authority that you be discharged due to misconduct. On 17 April 1964, a psychiatric evaluation reported “IMPRESSION: Adult situational reaction manifested by clinical picture of maladjustment to an undesirable situation which is more specifically vocational misplacement as well as duty station. Prior to his reenlistment the subject suffered no such symptoms or behavior. This behavior has continued untreated for a period of three years and has now progressed to a state where it manifests itself as an early characterological problem. The subject demonstrates a proclivity for his unconventional behavior for the past three years, manifesting latent weaknesses of an emotionally unstable type that had been utilized by the subject as a result of finding himself in an untenable situation after reenlistment. (Untenable regarding his vocational specialty as well as duty station.) His reaction to this situational stress by showing element of impulsivity, low frustration tolerance, passive ways of controlling hostility, egocentricity, resentment of authority and antisocial traits. It the situation which has been the genesis of this symptomatic behavior cannot be changed, it is the Psychiatrist’s feeling that the subject will continue to pursue what is becoming an established pattern of behavior.” On 22 April 1964, you received NJP for four days of UA. On 4 May 1964, the separation authority directed that you be discharged from the Marine Corps due to unsuitability. On 11 May 1964, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. Your request 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,” 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.” As part of the review process, a Navy mental health professional reviewed your request for and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion that you was suffering from a mental health condition during your service. The AO noted, in part, that you submitted a 2018 mental health assessment that reports two months of depression symptoms and lists a diagnosis of PTSD, unspecified. The AO also noted that, unfortunately, there is no indication that this diagnosis should be attributed to military service, “more than forty years before it was assigned.” The AO explained that a diagnosis of PTSD requires exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. The AO then specifically noted that there is no indication that you experienced such an event during your military service. The AO further noted that, while your change in occupation was very likely disappointing, in-service you were diagnosed with difficulty adjusting and an emerging characterological disorder. The AO determined that additional post-service medical records describing your traumatic event and the specific link between your PTSD symptoms and your military misconduct are required to render an alternate opinion. The AO opined that “[i]t is difficult to consider how repeated financial mismanagement, fraud, and vandalism could be attributed to PTSD.” Based on the available information, it was further opined that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD. The AO further determined that it is more reasonable to attribute your misconduct to alcohol use disorder and a possible character disorder. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, and desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also consider your assertions that you agreed to reenlist for an additional six years to become an airborne radio operator, but when you were informed that you were not qualified, you engaged in your misconduct, and these habits continued for many years after your discharge. You state that after many years of struggling with depression and thoughts of suicide, you started working with a doctor, and it was then that you were diagnosed with PTSD from “the situations surrounding your discharge.” However, the Board concluded that these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant changing your characterization of service given your misconduct, which resulted in your civil convictions, SPCM convictions, and NJPs. Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statement that there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to PTSD, and that it is more reasonable to attribute your misconduct to alcohol use disorder and a possible character disorder. 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.