Docket No: 4694-19 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 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, applicable statutes, regulations and policies, as well as an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 26 July 2020 and your rebuttal statement and documentation. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 10 September 1996. From 19-21 November 1997, you were hospitalized after expressing thoughts of suicide to your wife and diagnosed with a personality disorder with antisocial and borderline features. On 30 November 1998, you received an administrative remarks entry (Page 11) wherein you acknowledged that you were eligible but not recommended for promotion to the grade of corporal because of your lack of leadership, knowledge, and skills. On 13 August 1999, you received a Page 11 wherein you acknowledged that you were eligible but not recommended for promotion to corporal because of your poor leadership skill and military occupational specialty proficiency. On 25 August 1999, you received counseling due to your lack of initiative, need for constant supervision, and failure to set a proper example. On 7 September1999, you received a Page 11 wherein you acknowledged you were eligible but not recommended for promotion due to being in the hands of civilian authorities. On 16 December 1999, you were convicted by civilian authorities of breaking and entering and possession of “burglary tools” and sentenced to 45 days incarceration and one year of probation. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. After the staff judge advocate determined your administrative separation package was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 7 April 2000, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention you have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and paranoid personality disorder. 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,” of 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 qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 26 July 2020. The AO noted your in-service records did not provide any evidence of mental health symptoms or diagnosed mental health conditions. The AO further stated, other than a claim made to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), you have not submitted objective evidence documenting in-service trauma or that you exhibited any mental health symptoms or conditions during your military service suggestive of PTSD or other mental health disorders. Additionally, the AO stated you have not submitted any evidence of a post-discharge mental health condition as rendered by a mental health practitioner. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded there is insufficient evidence of PTSD or other mental health conditions attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was provided to you on 28 July 2020. The Board received and considered your rebuttal to the AO and supporting documentation received on 20 August 2020. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that had you received “proper medical treatment and discharge protocol,” your “life would have been much different.” Specifically, the Board considered your statement to the VA detailing a hazing event where you had your “head stomped into the floor for hours while I did pushups.” You contend you shared this event with your father who reported the incident, causing your squad leader to lose rank. You further contend that after this incident, you were treated poorly, considered a “snitch,” and feared for your life. The Board also considered your contention you did not receive a medical exam after this hazing incident and still do not know if you suffered a concussion or injury as a result of the traumatic event. The Board further considered your contention that you started experiencing physical pain throughout your body following the incident but your chain of command assumed you were a “liar and fabricating the pain to get out of training and operations.” Specifically, the Board considered your statement that your CO ripped up your limited duty paperwork, accused you of malingering, and told you that you “wouldn’t be getting out on a medical board.” In support of your contention, you submitted a copy of your CO’s 19 April 1999 memo which stated his reasons for believing you were malingering. The Board also considered your contention that you feared for your life, to the point that you falsely stated, while hospitalized in the psychiatric ward, that you “used and sold hard drugs prior to the Marine Corps” so the command would be forced to discharge you. You further contend that after your hospitalization and the determination you were “fit but not suitable,” the CO refused to discharge you. Lastly, you contend you have been diagnosed with PTSD and are “continuing PTSD counseling” but due to your life being “uprooted over and over I have records scattered across the country with many mental health professionals” and “these records would be very expensive to acquire and I don’t have the means to assemble them all.” In lieu of the documentation, in your rebuttal to the AO you provided an “After Visit Summary” from November 2018, an “Annual Bio/Psycho/Social” from Authority, and copies of three business cards from your “most recent counselors” with handwritten notes regarding the timeframe and subject of your recent counseling. The Board, applying liberal consideration and relying upon the AO, determined there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that you have been diagnosed with PTSD or a mental health condition attributable to military service that contributed to or mitigated your misconduct. The Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice, nor did you submit any evidence, that warrants changing your characterization of service. The Board also noted you did not submit any advocacy letters or post-discharge achievements to be considered for clemency purposes. In the end, 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 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,