Docket No: 3057-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
  
MR  
 

Dear Mr. :   
 
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.     
 
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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and the relevant Advisory Opinion (AO). 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 26 September 1984.  You were counseled on 3 October 1985, for misbehavior as a sentinel (sleeping on post).  You were also counseled on 25 March 1986 and 26 April 1986, for substandard performance (to include lack of responsibility for financial obligations) and failure to maintain alertness as a crewmember of the runway alert position, respectively.  You were counseled on 27 May 1986 for lack of personal financial responsibility.  On 25 July 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for intentionally, wrongfully and unlawfully delivering a check to a fellow Marine for your share of a bill for cable television services, for which you did not have sufficient funds to cover.  You were again counseled on 30 September 1986 for lack of financial responsibility.  On 3 October 1986, you received NJP for a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from 21 to 22 September 1986.  Administrative discharge proceedings were subsequently initiated against you.  On 7 January 1987, you were discharged from the Marine Corps on the basis of separation in lieu of trial by court martial; you received an other than honorable discharge characterization and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4.   
 
In your petition to the Board, you request an upgrade to your discharge characterization from other than honorable to general.  You state that the military did not recognize your Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and did not offer to assist you.  You note that you were designated as a 7501 Aircraft Firefighting and Rescue Specialist, and participated in crash site activities.  You contend that the sight of individuals who where killed and maimed began to impact you and you self-medicated with alcohol and drugs.  You state that you did not seek medical attention or counseling, nor did you realize at the time that you were suffering from PTSD.  You assert that the judge advocate assigned to your case immediately suggested you could take an other than honorable discharge as part of a plea agreement rather than going to a court martial and receiving a dishonorable discharge.  You contend that you were not counseled or offered any other alternative.    
 
Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of  3 September 2014, and the “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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” memorandum of 25 August 2017.  
 
As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed your request, and issued an AO dated 29 April 2020.  The AO noted that you did not submit evidence regarding any mental health symptoms or conditions during your military service nor did you submit information regarding post-discharge treatment or diagnoses.  The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence of mental health conditions attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct.  The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.   
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered your claim of suffering from mental health issues during your time in the Marine Corps and noted your statement regarding exposure to individuals who had been injured or killed as part of your  military duties as a 7051 Aircraft Firefighting and Rescue Specialist.  The Board, however, noted that you did not provide additional mental health records establishing that you suffered from a mental health condition that made you unaccountable for your misconduct or that mitigated your misbehavior.  The Board concurred with the AO and determined that based on the available evidence, there is insufficient information to establish that your misconduct was mitigated by a qualifying mental health condition.  The Board found that the nature of your misconduct, to include frequent instances of lack of personal financial responsibility, sleeping on post, and a period of UA, supported the issuance of the other than honorable discharge.  The Board found that your discharge was issued without error or injustice, and does not merit corrective action. 
  
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 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,