DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9278-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 22 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, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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) (Kurta Memo, Hagel Memo, and Wilkie Memo collectively, “Clemency Memos”). You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 July 1976. Your pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 7 June 1977 you received non-judicial punishment for the wrongful possession of a controlled substance. On 19 December 1978 you requested a hardship discharge due to the health of your parents. On 24 January 1979 Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps denied your request because you did not meet the criteria for such a discharge, and you were subsequently informed that you were to report to the movement center at , for further transportation to ,. On 1 February 1979 you attempted suicide by slashing one of your wrists. On 16 April 1979 you commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated after 346 days on 27 March 1980 with your surrender to military authorities in 30 April 1980 you commenced a second UA. Your UA terminated on 30 June 80 following your motorcycle accident that resulted in serious personal injuries. A Medical Board convened on 28 July 1980 and found you not fit for full duty, but fit for a period of limited duty for six months. On 12 August 1980 you underwent a psychiatric evaluation. The Medical Officer diagnosed you with an immature personality disorder with dependent traits and recommended your command to pursue administrative separation. Your command referred your two UA charges to a Special Court-Martial (SPCM). On 18 September 1980 you submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under an other than honorable (OTH) conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for your two lengthy UAs. Prior to submitting this voluntary discharge request you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. In the interim, on 15 October 1980 you voluntarily waived your medical rights and benefits attendant to your military service in order to secure an OTH discharge in lieu of going to a SPCM. Ultimately, on 20 October 1980 you were separated from the Marine Corps with an OTH discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 11 December 2020. The MD observed that you were psychiatrically hospitalized for slashing your wrist under the stressors of orders transferring you to and the denial of your humanitarian discharge. The MD noted that you were diagnosed with an adjustment reaction and immature personality and recommended for administrative separation for unsuitability. The MD noted that your in-service records contained evidence of being diagnosed with a personality disorder but no other mental health conditions, and the MD determined that there was no evidence of psychological symptoms or behavioral changes indicating PTSD or other major mental health conditions. The MD observed that during your separation physical that neither the Medical Officer nor you reported any mental health symptoms or conditions, and the Medical Officer deemed you medically qualified for release. The MD further noted that you did not submit any post-service clinical documentation from a mental health practitioner to support your mental health contentions. The MD concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence you incurred service-connected PTSD or any other mental health conditions that might mitigate your misconduct. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Clemency Memos. These included, but were not limited to your assertions that: (a) you grew up in a home with an abusive father, (b) when your extension and hardship requests were denied you were mentally distraught, had a breakdown, and attempted suicide, (c) clearly anyone who contemplates taking their own life is struggling with underlying mental health conditions, (d) the military pervasively used personality disorders to separate service members who don’t adapt to military service and become problematic, (e) your ongoing, untreated, mental health conditions led to your UAs, (f) your decision to go UA was born out of a desire to protect your mother given your family history, and (g) you request the Board holistically evaluate your request on clemency grounds. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Clemency Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded that there was no convincing evidence that you suffered from any type of mental health condition while on active duty, or that any such mental health conditions or symptoms were related to or mitigated the misconduct that formed the basis of your discharge. As a result, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not due to mental health-related symptoms. The Board also determined that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should otherwise not be held accountable for your actions. The Board determined that personality disorders are characterized by a longstanding pattern of unhealthy behaviors, dysfunctional relationships, and maladaptive thinking patterns. They are not conditions considered unfitting or disabling, but render service members unsuitable for military service and consideration for administrative separation. Accordingly, the Board concluded that your personality disorder was a non-disabling disorder of character and behavior, and that it should not be considered a mitigating factor in your misconduct because it did not impair your ability to be accountable for your actions or behaviors. Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average in conduct was 3.25. Marine Corps regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 4.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your serious misconduct which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge. The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. The Board determined that characterization under OTH conditions is generally warranted for misconduct and is appropriate when the basis for separation is the commission of an act or acts constituting a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your serious misconduct clearly merited your receipt of an OTH, and that your separation was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 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, Executive Director