Docket No: 6583-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant 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.     
 
Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo).  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2020.  The names and votes of the panel members 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, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).  The Board also considered an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health professional dated 21 October 2020.   
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 December 1972.  On 6 August 1973, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two unauthorized absences (UA) totaling 26 days.  On 1 May 1974, you were convicted by special court-martial for a 211-day UA and sentenced to confinement, forfeiture, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review.  On 17 October 1974, you were discharged. 
 
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 21 October 2020.  The AO stated your in-service records do not contain direct or indirect evidence of a mental health condition nor do they contain psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated a mental health condition.  The AO also noted you did not provide any evidence of a post-discharge mental health diagnosis.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence does not support your contention that you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of your military service or that your in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.  The AO was provided to you on 23 October 2020, and you were given 30 days to respond.  When you did not respond, the case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were so emotionally distraught over your failing marriage that you could not focus on your duties and left without authorization to try to save your marriage.  You further contend you were not offered support for this “major life crisis that was causing severe emotional distress.”  Specifically, you contend you spoke to your drill instructor when you received a letter from your wife announcing she was leaving you but the command did not offer counseling or assistance for “this major emotional crisis.”   For purposes of clemency, the Board also considered the advocacy letters submitted on your behalf.  The Board noted that it cannot set aside a conviction, but may only grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of service, even one awarded by a court-martial.  However, the Board, applying liberal consideration, relied on the AO and determined there was insufficient evidence that you suffered from a mental health condition incurred during military service.  Unfortunately, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions discussed above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your BCD, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.  
 
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, 
1/13/2021
Executive Director