DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2090-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 July 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 27 February 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to you. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 7 March 1975. During the period from 16 March 1976 to 30 September 1977, you received five nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for sleeping on watch, use of disrespectful language, failing to go at the time prescribed, failure to obey an order, and failure to be at your appointed place of duty. Further, you were counseled that should your sub-standard conduct continue, you could be processed for an administrative discharge. On 16 November 1977, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of disrespect and failure to obey an order. On 19 January 1978, you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 20 January 1978, you were counseled concerning your frequent involvement with military authorities and the administrative and disciplinary actions, which might result from continued involvement. On 11 October 1978, you were convicted by a second SCM of possessing a switchblade knife with a blade in excess of three inches. On 19 January 1979, you received your seventh NJP for two instances of failing to obey an order. On 6 March 1979, you were released from active duty with a general characterization of service. You request an upgrade of your characterization of service on the basis that you suffered from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during your military 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.” In your Veterans Affairs Decision document you contend you suffer from PTSD as a result of a severe knee injury you sustained while playing football during your service. You assert that the knee injury eventually required multiple surgeries to include a failed knee replacement, which caused you to fall and injure your shoulder. A Navy mental health professional further reviewed your request for correction to your record and provided the Board with an AO regarding your assertion you were suffering from PTSD during your service. The AO noted that you provided a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision Letter granting service connection for PTSD with alcohol use disorder, with an evaluation of 50 percent disability secondary to the service-connected disability of status post left total knee arthroplasty that occurred during military service. There were no in-service medical records detailing your knee injury or subsequent surgical procedures. However, there is a reference to you being placed on limited duty for six months in November of 1976. Your misconduct pre-dated the period of limited duty, though it is unclear when the actual injury occurred. The majority of the misconduct did occur after the period of limited duty that started in November 1976. However, the mental health examinations that diagnosed you with PTSD did not address the numerous episodes of misconduct or establish how the post-service diagnosis of PTSD mitigates your in-service misconduct. Therefore, based on the available evidence, your diagnosis of PTSD is more likely than not attributable to your military service. However, the available evidence only partially supports your contention that your misconduct is wholly attributable to PTSD. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered your assertions that you were never tested for PTSD, that you are a 100 percent disabled veteran with a service-connected disability, unemployable, and that you fulfilled your completed obligation to the Marine Corps. The Board concurred with the AO that based on the available evidence, your diagnosis of PTSD is more likely than not attributable to your military service; however, the available evidence only partially supports your contention that your misconduct is wholly attributable to PTSD. The Board, having considered all the available evidence, found no error or injustice in your discharge that warrants an upgrade in the characterization of your service. Furthermore, given your misconduct, which resulted in seven NJPs and two SCMs, some of which occurred after being warned of the consequences of further misconduct, the Board determined that an honorable characterization of service is not warranted. 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.