Dear : 
 
This letter 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 with respect to your request to upgrade your characterization of service 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 25 June 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.  The Board also requested, and considered, an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a medical doctor. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 25 July 1989.  On 21 June 1990, you receceived nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence and violating a lawful regulation.  On 31 January 1992, you were convicted at a special court-martial for stealing night vision goggles.  On 5 June 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment again, for unauthorized absence.  On 31 July 1992, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing, and you waived your right to an administrative discharge board.  You were discharged on 28 August 1992, with an other than honorable characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all of your contentions and all potentially mitigating factors, including that you contend that you believe you had “mild PTSD from losing friends in  and having spent time in the brig.”  You also believed that you received pressure and bad advice from persons of authority that led you to believe that a voluntary discharge was your best option. 
 
The Board requested an AO on your case to evaluate your claim.  You did not submit any additional material, and the AO was based on the review of all available records.  You have previously been provided a copy of the AO.  According to the AO, 
 
Former member’s in-service personnel and medical records do not contain any evidence of mental health symptoms or conditions, or evidence of any traumatic incidents incurred during his military service.  The Petitioner submitted no further explanation of traumatic incidents or the existence of mental health symptoms or conditions that arose from the alleged traumatic incidents.  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.   
 
The AO concluded by stating that, “based on the available evidence, it is my considered opinion that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to Petitioner’s military service that may have mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct. 
 
After careful consideration of your contentions, including the AO described above, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading 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.