Docket No: 9275-19 
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 29 January 2021.  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 17 December 2020, which was previously provided to you.   
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 September 1979.  After serving honorably until 13 January 1982, you reenlisted on 14 January 1982.  On 4 June 1982, you were counseled after a positive urinalysis indicating use of THC and placed on the urinalysis screening program.  On 8 January 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling one day and four hours.  On 4 February 1985, you were counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct which reflected irresponsibility and poor judgment.  On 25 October 1985, you began a period of UA that lasted until you surrendered on 24 August 1987.  Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain all the documents pertaining to your administrative discharge.  Based on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), however, it appears you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Prior to submitting this request, you would have been required to confer with qualified military counsel, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was granted, and your commanding officer was directed to discharge you for the good of the service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  As a result, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of a punitive discharge.  You were discharged on 2 September 1987.   
  
As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 17 December 2020.  The AO stated your in-service records do not contain direct evidence of a mental health diagnosis or psychological/behavioral changes that may have indicated a mental health condition.  The AO further noted you presented evidence of your post-discharge diagnoses of PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Alcohol/Cocaine Use Disorder, but did not provide any clinical history to associate the diagnoses with your military service or misconduct.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded there is insufficient objective evidence that you incurred a mental health condition as a result of your military service or that your misconduct may be mitigated by a mental health condition.  The AO was provided to you on 18 December 2020, and you were given 30 days to respond.  When you did not respond within the 30 days, 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 a good Marine, made one mistake, and are “still a good Marine.”  The Board further considered your contention that you discovered your wife was having an affair and you sought help because you were “becoming increasingly depressed and feeling out of control.” You contend you reached out to your chain of command, starting with your platoon sergeant and ending with the chaplain, but did not receive help.  The Board also considered your contention that your struggles caused your reassignment to temporary duty stateside while your unit deployed, causing you to lose hope and creating thoughts of using your weapon on your wife for what she had done.   You contend you felt the only solution was to “leave [your] weapons and get out” so, two months prior to discharge, you “went AWOL because [you] felt [you] had no other recourse.”  The Board, applying liberal consideration, relying on the AO, and noting you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters for consideration, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or granting clemency in the form of an upgraded characterization of service.  Finally, the Board noted you received a benefit from being allowed to separate with an OTH character of service instead of risking greater punishment at a court-martial.   
 
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 your misconduct 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,