Docket No: 3256-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 

Dear : 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 19 March 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
Because your application was submitted with new documentation, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application.  In this regard, your current request was carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 10 July 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your record was reviewed for errors and injustice 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, as well as the 14 May 2020 advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy mental health professional. 
 
You enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) on 7 October 1975, and served on active duty from 2 December 1975 to 13 April 1976.  On 11 April 1978, the officer-in-charge notified you that he intended to recommend your administrative reduction in rank because of your “demonstrated lack of qualifications to properly perform the duties of your present grade” by failing to attend scheduled unit training on 15-16 October 1977, 19-20 November 1977,  
21-22 January 1978, 17-19 February 1978, and 11-12 March 1978.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to shirking (failure to meet satisfactory participation requirements).  On 20 June 1978, the staff judge advocate advised the commanding general that the proceedings did not support a discharge for shirking but the record supported administrative separation for the convenience of the government due to substandard personal behavior.  On 12 July 1978, the discharge authority directed a general, under honorable conditions (GEN) characterization of service by reason of convenience of the government.  On 31 July 1978, you were discharged with a GEN characterization of service. 
 
Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention that you suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  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 Navy mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 14 May 2020.  The AO noted your in-service personnel and medical records do not provide evidence of a mental health condition but, post-service, you have been diagnosed with PTSD.  The AO further stated the linkage between your misconduct, failure to meet the USMCR obligation, and the death of your friend in boot camp is less clear.  The AO concluded there was sufficient evidence that you incurred PTSD as a result of military service but there is insufficient evidence that your subsequent misconduct is attributable to PTSD.  The AO was mailed to you on 14 May 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not respond within 30 days, your case was submitted to the Board for review. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention you suffered from PTSD that occurred while you were in boot camp.  Relying on the AO, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence in the record to attribute your failure to attend five months of required reserve drills to a mental health condition or PTSD.  Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to establish an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to your characterization of service. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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,