Docket No: 5792-19/ 6814-17 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 6 June 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 Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with a new statement and supporting 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 6 November 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, as well as an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 30 September 2020. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 21 July 1989. On 5 January 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from your appointed place of duty, underage drinking, and drunk and disorderly conduct. On 25 January 1990, you were diagnosed with alcohol abuse and recommended for Level II rehabilitation treatment and evaluation for Level III treatment. On 10 April 1990, you received a second NJP for a three-day UA. On 6 July 1990, you were counseled for underage drinking. On 18 January 1991, you were counseled for irresponsibility and inability to adhere to the rules and regulations governing conduct ashore. On 24 June 1991, you were counseled regarding proper maintenance of your uniforms. On 27 June 1991, you were counseled regarding maintaining your assigned weapon and failure to maintain a proper attitude, using poor judgment, and immature conduct. On 29 July 1991, you received a third NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 13 August 1991, the Director, Consolidated Drug and Alcohol Center, informed your Commanding Officer (CO) that you were being admitted to an Alcohol Rehabilitation Department (ARD) and would be transported to a different ARD at a later date. On 8 October 1991, you were counseled for failure to adhere to the alcohol rehabilitation program after being stopped at the main gate with alcohol on your breath less than 24 hours after release from the alcohol rehabilitation program. On 22 October 1991, you received a fourth NJP for an UA of less than two hours. On 4 December 1991, you were diagnosed as an alcohol treatment failure and drug abuser and administrative separation was recommended. You were subsequently notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. After you waived your right to consult counsel and all your procedural rights, your CO recommended you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to alcohol rehabilitation failure and misconduct. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. On 4 February 1992, you were discharged. Your request for a change to your characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of your contention you suffered from alcohol abuse and 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,” 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 30 September 2020. The AO noted your in-service records contain direct evidence you were diagnosed and treated for Alcohol Dependence and Drug Abuse. However, the AO further stated there is no direct or indirect evidence of psychological/behavioral changes that may have indicated additional mental health disorders such as PTSD. Further, the AO stated you provided a post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD but that the clinical records do not draw a linkage between this diagnosis and your in-service misconduct. The AO noted your in-service records contemporary to your military service do not provide evidence of behavioral changes or psychological symptoms indicative of PTSD or other diagnosable mental health conditions, other than your substance abuse disorders. Throughout your disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing, there were no concerns cited of any indications of a mental health condition that would have warranted referral to mental health resources, and, on your separation physical, the examining physician found you qualified for separation and did not document any physical or psychological findings or conditions. Based on the available evidence, the AO determined there was insufficient evidence you incurred PTSD as a result of military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health conditions. The AO was provided to you on 2 October 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 contentions that your minor disciplinary infractions did not warrant an OTH discharge. The Board also considered your contention that the Marine Corps’ failed to provide alcohol rehabilitation treatment early in your career when first diagnosed with alcohol abuse, and its failure resulted in your OTH discharge. Specifically, you contend that you were diagnosed in January 1990 with alcohol abuse, and although treatment was recommended, you did not receive alcohol rehabilitation treatment until August 1991, 18 months after your diagnosis and four months after returning from Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Without adequate and immediate support, you contend you were “failed by the very country and government I signed up to defend.” You contend you should have been “sent straight to rehab or discharged after the first incident.” The Board further considered your contention that your minor disciplinary infractions “stemmed from the disease of alcoholism and my addiction to alcohol.” Unfortunately, the Board, noting the record does not indicate why you did not receive treatment prior to deployment, did not find evidence of an error or injustice in the timing of your alcohol rehabilitation treatment. The Board presumed regularity in your command’s decision for you to continue training and preparing for deployment, and its ultimate determination that you would deploy in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Further, the Board noted you received alcohol rehabilitation treatment starting in August 1991 but within 24 hours of being released from the treatment program, you returned to base with alcohol on your breath and within two weeks of your return, you received a fourth NJP. Although both alcohol rehabilitation treatment failure and misconduct were bases for your administrative separation, your repeated poor performance and misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and several counseling entries, constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine and warranted an OTH characterization of service. Additionally, the Board considered the contentions, supporting documentation, and seven advocacy letters from your previous submission. However, the Board, applying liberal consideration, relied on the AO and determined there was insufficient evidence to link your post-discharge PTSD diagnosis and your in-service misconduct. In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018). Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Marine Corps, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements. Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice. The Board concluded that your OTH discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 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,