Docket No: 10007-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your deceased father’s naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo).  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members 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, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).  The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 12 January 2021 which was previously provided to you.   
 
Your father enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 February 1969.  On 7 October 1969, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an eleven-day unauthorized absence (UA).  On 21 October 1969, a search of your father’s locker resulted in the discovery of drug paraphernalia, and a separate search of his wallet, resulted in recovery of a small plastic packet.  When questioned, he refused to discuss the matter.  On 10 February 1970, your father received a second NJP for three periods of UA from 17-22 December 1969, 2-26 January 1970, and 27-29 January 1970.  On 10 March 1970, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service lab report noted the presence of heroin in the drug paraphernalia seized from your father on 21 October 1969.  On 11 March 1970, your father received a third NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.  Subsequently, he was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness.  After your father waived his procedural rights, the commanding officer (CO) recommended separation by reason of unfitness with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service, and in his recommendation, the CO noted that your father was pending disciplinary action for possession and unauthorized use of narcotics, breaking restriction, and a UA period from 27 March 1970 to 4 April 1970.  After the staff judge advocate determined the separation package was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH character of service by reason of unfitness.  On 26 June 1970, your father was discharged with an OTH character of service.   
 
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 12 January 2021.  The AO stated that your father’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated a mental health condition other than substance abuse.  The AO further stated that throughout his military service, sick call appointments, confinement physical examination, disciplinary actions, counseling sessions, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources.  Further, the AO noted there was no indication in your father’s in-service records that he was exposed to a primary or secondary trauma.  Although you have concluded your father suffered from PTSD, the AO stated there was no clinical evidence presented that included any details of symptoms, traumatic event, or clinical diagnosis.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the preponderance of available objective evidence does not support your contention that your father was diagnosed with PTSD or other mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of military service, or that his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.  The AO was provided to you on 14 January 2021 and you were given 30 days in which to respond.  When you did not respond after 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that your father suffered from undiagnosed PTSD and his traumatic experiences led to the “deterioration of his character and discharge.”  Specifically, you contend your father faced “systemic discrimination,” received “disproportionate punishment,” and was “mentally and emotionally overwhelmed with difficulties that he experienced as an active duty soldier,” which resulted in self-medication with drugs.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your father’s discharge.  Unfortunately, the Board, relying on the AO and applying liberal consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your father’s characterization of service.  Further, the Board noted you did not provide documentation or advocacy letters for consideration and concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant upgrading your father’s character of service based on clemency.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your father’s discharge and the contentions discussed above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined your father’s conduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 
  
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.   

Sincerely,