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 19 March 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).    
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 July 1970.  Your Marine Corps Military Occupational Specialty was a Cook.  On 18 July 1973 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated on 30 January 1976.  On 10 February 1976 your physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms.   
 
Your command referred three separate charges to a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) for UA lasting 17, 294, and 926 days, respectively.  On or about 18 March 1976 you submitted a voluntary written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial for your three periods of UA.  Prior to submitting this voluntary discharge request you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Ultimately, on 5 April 1976 you were separated from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.  On 5 June 1981 the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that your discharge was proper as issued and no change was warranted.     
 
As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 27 January 2021.  The Ph.D. noted that your in-service records did not contain evidence of a mental health diagnosis or psychological or behavioral changes indicating any mental health condition.  The Ph.D. also noted that throughout your disciplinary actions, counseling, and administrative processing there were no concerns noted warranting referral to mental health resources.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the preponderance of available evidence failed to establish you were either diagnosed with or suffered from a service-connected mental health condition, or that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.     
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos.  These included, but were not limited to:  (a) your discharge should be upgraded to reflect the time you served and willingness to enlist during the Vietnam War period, (b) you suffered emotional and psychological stress that influenced you to make poor decisions to go UA, and (c) you suffered a nervous breakdown from the shock and stress of deployment.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
In accordance with the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie 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 convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition or nervous breakdown while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge.  As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms.  Moreover, the Board observed that you did not submit any additional clinical documentation or treatment records to support your mental health claims despite a request from the Board on 20 December 2019 to specifically provide additional documentary material.  The Board also noted that while your Marine Corps service was during the Vietnam era, you never forward deployed into the Vietnam theater of operations or were involved in any combat operations.  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.     
 
Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your overall active duty trait average in conduct was 3.33.  Marine Corps regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 4.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service.  The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious misconduct which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge. 
 
The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and 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.  Absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  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 merited your receipt of an OTH, and that your separation was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 
 
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,