Docket No: 10021-19
Ref: Signature Date
                


Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your 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 5 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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) (Kurta Memo, Hagel Memo, and Wilkie Memo collectively, “Clemency Memos”).   
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 19 June 1989.  Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.  On 7 November 1990 a Medical Officer determined that you were alcohol dependent and recommended Level III inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment (Level III).  On 17 December 1990 you were admitted to the Level III program.  On 8 February 1991 you completed the Level III treatment program and were placed in an outpatient Level III Aftercare program (Aftercare).   
 
On 25 February 1991 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) lasting three days.  On 25 February 1991 you also failed to report to your scheduled Aftercare appointment.  On 28 March 1991 your commanding officer issued you a “Page 11” counseling warning documenting UA, intoxication at work, and not following orders.  The Page 11 advised you that a failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation or judicial proceedings.  However, on 1 April 1991 you failed to report to your scheduled Aftercare appointment and on 3 April 1991 you were dropped from the Aftercare program for failing to comply with your recommended recovery plan.  On 9 April 1991 you received NJP for UA and being drunk on duty.   
 
On 13 May 1991 you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure for being an Aftercare failure.  You expressly waived your rights to consult with counsel, submit a written statement, and to present your case to an administrative separation board.  In the interim, on 5 June 1991 you received NJP for both drinking on duty and failing to obey a lawful order.  On 4 August 1991 your separation physical and medical history noted no psychological or neurological conditions or symptoms.  On 15 August 1991 you received NJP for UA lasting seven days and two specifications of failing to obey a lawful order.  Ultimately, on 30 August 1991 you were separated from the Marine Corps with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) discharge. 
 
As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 22 December 2020.  The MD initially observed that you did not provide evidence of either in-service documentation or a post-discharge diagnosis of a mental health condition provided as part of your petition, other than your alcohol use disorder.  The MD noted that your in-service records failed to reveal any evidence of additional in-service mental health symptoms or conditions other than substance abuse.  The MD concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence of a service-connected mental health condition other than substance abuse that may have mitigated your misconduct.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Clemency Memos.  These included, but were not limited to:  (a) your entire life you have suffered from alcoholism which started when you were serving in the Marine Corps, (b) the Department of Defense is applying liberal consideration to cases like yours, (c) you have been sober for a number of years through AA’s 12 Steps, and (d) today you are the man God, your family, the Marine Corps, and the men you sponsor can look to as a good example.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 
 
In accordance with the Clemency Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service.  However, the Board concluded that there was no nexus between any mental health conditions or mental health-related symptoms and your misconduct, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that any such mental health conditions mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct was not due to mental health-related conditions or symptoms other than substance abuse.  The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions.     
 
The Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious as to deserve a discharge upgrade and determined that Marines should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due.  The Board determined that characterization under GEN conditions is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine.  The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of a GEN. 
 
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,