Docket No: 9619-19 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). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 June 1984. On 4 January 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for discharging a firearm while a member of the Area Guard Force under circumstances such as to endanger human life. On 8 July 1986, you received a second NJP for violation of a lawful order by wearing an earring and disobeying a lawful order by refusing to remove it. On 17 July 1986, you received a third NJP for breaking restriction. On 8 August 1986, you received a fourth NJP for breaking restriction. On 28 October 1986, you were convicted by the District Court in for writing worthless checks. On 22 November 1986, you were hospitalized due to an impulsive overdose and diagnosed with adjustment disorder, with angry mood, and immature personality. Your available record is incomplete in that it does not contain the documents pertaining to your administrative discharge but, based on the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) review of your records in 1988 and 1992, and your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), it appears that after being afforded all of your rights, the separation authority directed discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. You were discharged on 29 January 1987. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with an AO on 16 December 2020. The AO stated that your in-service records contain diagnoses of adjustment disorder and personality disorder but do not provide any evidence of additional mental health conditions or indirect evidence of psychological symptoms or behavioral changes that may indicate other mental health conditions. The AO further noted you provided post-discharge clinical evidence of being diagnosed with PTSD, chronic depression, and ADHD but your personal statement indicated these stemmed from childhood sexual assault and emotional abuse. Further, the AO noted you did not provide clinical history from your psychotherapy that related your post-discharge diagnoses to your military service or misconduct. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded there is insufficient evidence you incurred PTSD as a result of your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct. The AO was provided to you on 16 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 suffering from various psychiatric conditions and dealing with racial discrimination and bullying while in-service, and are currently in need of psychiatric care so you can find steady work, buy a home, care for your family and be a productive member of society. Specifically, you contend you “did not know or understand at the time” that you were “suffering from various psychiatric conditions due to the abuse [you] suffered as a teenager and child.” You explained that you were molested by a cousin at the age of seven and raped at 14 years of age. You further stated that in March 2018, your therapist informed you that you were suffering from PTSD, chronic depression and ADHD stemming from the abuse you suffered in your youth. The Board considered your contention that you “now see that some of my behavior in the Marines was exacerbated and due to those undiagnosed conditions brought on during early childhood” but you were “young and immature and did not fully understand how to deal with certain situations that confronted [you] during military life.” The Board further considered your contention you were discriminated against and bullied due to your race and “these instances had long lasting influences.” Additionally, the Board considered your contention that under current discharge policy, you would have been provided a pre-separation health assessment to medically evaluate your mental condition but also noted the physician who performed your separation physical noted your psychiatric hospitalization and diagnoses and deemed you medically qualified for release from active duty. Lastly, the Board noted you did not identify any specific instances of in-service trauma that would have aggravated the undiagnosed PTSD you came into the service with due to the abuse you suffered in your youth. Applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence you suffered from PTSD in-service or that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board also considered your contention you were never referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist for treatment after your suicide attempt and subsequent hospitalization. The Board further considered your contention that your superiors “began to assign [you] to menial duties in an attempt to force [you] to quit the Marines” and you felt “singled out” because of your “mental issues.” The Board noted you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and immature personality disorder after psychiatric consultation while hospitalized but, as noted in the AO, the remainder of your in-service records did not contain any additional evidence of psychological symptoms or mental health conditions and your separation physical deemed you medically qualified for release from active duty. Further, the Board considered your contention that you were discharged “without any sort of hearing.” Specifically, you contend that your commanding officer (CO) presented you with two options: serve six months in the brig or be discharged early. You contend that you were never told your discharge would be “anything other than honorable” and you saw the CO “write general, under honorable conditions,” as your characterization of service. Further, you contend that without advice from an attorney or any other counsel, you “agreed to the early discharge with the understanding that [your] status would be general, under honorable conditions.” Lastly, the Board considered your contention that you were not given notice of the proposed separation or that it could result in discharge, what character of discharge was being proposed, or your rights to consult counsel prior to election of your rights or be appointed military counsel. You further contend you were not informed of your rights to submit statements or elect a hearing before an administrative discharge board. The Board noted that although your administrative separation documentation was not available for its review, the NDRB reviewed your documentation and noted your discharge was proper. Further, you have provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to overcome the presumption of regularity in your administrative processing. Additionally, the Board considered your post-service accomplishments as mentioned in your statement but noted you did not provide supporting documentation or advocacy letters further detailing your post-service record. Specifically, the Board considered your formation of a discussion group to help young black men suffering from PTSD, your volunteer work with the National Association for Mental Illness, and your service as a health ambassador for a pharmaceutical company after learning you were HIV positive in 2010. Further, the Board considered your statement regarding the various speaking engagements you have participated in for various groups, women’s conferences, and police departments. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your misconduct warranted an OTH character of service. Further, the Board, relying on the AO, concluded there was insufficient evidence you suffered from a mental health condition in-service or that your misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. The Board, applying liberal consideration, 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 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,