Docket No: 10829-19 
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 22 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, including the Kurta 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 requested and reviewed a 19 January 2021 (AO) from a mental health professional. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 October 1992.  From 19 December 1994 to 13 February 1997, you received six Page 11 counseling/warnings concerning a variety of deficiencies, including your unsatisfactory preparation for a personnel inspection, sleeping on post, and notifications that you were not being promoted due to unsatisfactory conduct and weight control, and for failure properly to secure classified material.  On 2 June 1997, you were charged with three instances of willful disobedience, four instances of insubordinate conduct, and two instances of dereliction of duty, and you were referred to trial by special court-martial.  On 14 July 1997, you requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Your request was approved, and on 14 August 1997, you were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service.  In 1998, you petitioned the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB).  In your petition, you contended that you worked in a hostile environment and the punishment 
was too severe for the crime.  The NDRB denied your petition in March 1999.  In its notice to you of its denial of your petition, the NDRB encouraged you to continue your pursuit of an honorable discharge by providing post-service clemency materials. 
 
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 discharge and contentions that while you were on active duty you had option of choosing discharge or court-martial proceedings for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer; feeling harassed and intimidated, you chose discharge.  Upon reflection, you feel you should have stayed to rebut the charges against you.  The Board did not feel that there was enough evidence to grant relief based on these contentions.  The Board also noted that, while you provided some information concerning your post-service activities, you did not provide sufficient information such that the Board could find in your favor. 
 
You also noted that you have been seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.  Based on this assertion, the Board requested and reviewed a 19 January 2021 AO, which found as follows: 
 
Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a mental health condition.  Throughout his military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, there were no concerns noted of any indications of a mental health condition that would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Petitioner has submitted no information that he had a post-discharge clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Additional information, such as medical records containing a diagnosis of a mental health condition associated with his military service and linked to his military misconduct is required to render an alternate opinion. Should the Petitioner choose to submit additional clinical information, it will be reviewed in the context of his claims. 
 
Ultimately, the AO determined that there is insufficient evidence that you incurred PTSD, or any mental health condition, as a result of your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct.” 
 
Based upon its review, the Board concluded the potentially mitigating factors you raised were insufficient to warrant relief.  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 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. 
 
Sincerely, 
2/24/2021
Executive Director