DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 0272-19 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application of 29 November 2018 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2019. 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) provided by a mental health professional on 25 September 2019, a copy of which was previously provided to you. You reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 November 1997 after serving honorably during your first enlistment. On 23 December 1999, you were counseled for wearing an earring. On 27 September 2000, you were counseled regarding your lack of integrity, poor judgment, irresponsible personal behavior, and exhibiting a poor example for subordinates. On 15 May 2001, you received non-judicial punishment for wrongful use of drugs. Subsequently, on 19 June 2001, you were notified of a pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and, after consulting counsel, you waived your procedural rights. On 12 October 2001, while awaiting administrative separation processing, you were convicted by summary court-martial for failure to go to restriction muster on four occasions and willfully disobeying a lawful command. On 6 November 2001, your commanding officer recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that you be discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. On 13 December 2001, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. Your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention that you “fell victim to the immediate mental stresses and overwhelmed mental fatigue.” 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.” As part of the Board’s review, a mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 25 September 2019. The AO noted you did not submit any medical documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The AO further stated your record supports your contention you were experiencing personal stressors at the conclusion of service but “stress is not a sole indicator of a mental health condition” and additional records would be required to render an alternate opinion. The AO concluded there is insufficient evidence to attribute your misconduct to a mental health condition. The AO was provided to you on 25 September 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you fell victim to the stress of assuming a leadership role of an entire department, constant training, and overseas duty. The Board also considered the stress of returning home from an overseas deployment to find your fiancé physically in bed with another man and learning your two-year old son is not your biological child. You further contend that, after confiding in your best friend, you smoked marijuana to numb the pain. Additionally, the Board considered your post-service record. Specifically, the Board considered your mentoring of veterans and their families, incarcerated youth, people with disabilities, community families, and business entities. The Board also considered the plan you have for a “veteran-owned” label on your business which would allow you to continue helping even more veterans by procuring contracts that allow for assistance on a larger scale. Lastly, the Board considered your remorse and your hope that “one wrong choice as a youth” while in the service will “hopefully not restrict me for a lifetime.” The Board, however, concurred with the AO and determined there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that a mental health condition contributed to or mitigated your misconduct. The Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants changing your characterization of service. 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. Sincerely, 12/19/2019