DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N  O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2   N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

CRS 
Docket No:  3714-00 
13 March 2001 

This is in reference to your application for reconsideration for 
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 
Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 7 March 2001.  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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations 
and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was 
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material 
error or injustice. 

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 15 
November 1966 at age 19.  The record reflects that you were 
convicted by three summary courts-martial.  The offenses included 
unauthorized absences totalling 60 days and willful disobedience 
of a lawful order. 

Your military record shows that on 18 August 1969 you submitted a 
written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid 
trial by court-martial for five periods of unauthorized absence 
totalling 170 days and assault.  Your record also shows that 
prior to submitting this 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.  The Board found that your request was granted and, as 
a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court- 
martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive 
discharge and confinement at hard labor.  You received an 
undesirable discharge on 3 September 1969. 

On 2 August 1977 the Naval Discharge Review Board  (NDRB) changed 
the characterization of the discharge to general under the 
provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). 
However, on 14 July 1978 NDRB declined to confirm the general 
discharge under its uniform discharge review standards, thus 
denying you veteransf benefits. 

On 3 January 1996 this Board reviewed and denied your request to 
confirm the general discharge. 

An advisory opinion furnished by the Bureau of Medicine an9 
Surgery, a copy of which is attached, was unable to pinpaint-the 
exact time of onset of your post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
and thus was inconclusive as to whether PTSD contributed to your 
misconduct. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity 
and the contention that you had PTSD and that it was a 
contributing factor in the misconduct which led to your 
discharge.  However, these factors were not sufficient to warrant 
further recharacterization of your discharge or confirmation of 
the general discharge given your request for discharge to avoid 
trial for unauthorized absences totalling more than five months, 
and your three earlier disciplinary actions.  The Board believed 
that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request 
to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this 
action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor 
and a punitive discharge.  Further, the Board concluded that you 
received the benefit of your bargain when your request for 
discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it 
now.  Additionally, the Board believed that the relief granted by 
the NDRB in accordance with the provisions of the SDRP is 
sufficient in your case.  In this regard, even if you did suffer 
from PTSD at the time of your service, and it became symptomatic 
during your period of active duty, there is no indication that 
the disorder caused an inability to know right from wrong or 
adhere to the right, or that your PTSD was sufficiently 
mitigating to warrant confirming your general discharge thus 
making you eligible for benefits administered by the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.  Accordingly, your application has been 
denied.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be 
furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that 
favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the 
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence or other matter not previously 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, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Copy to:  Veterans of Foreign Wars 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY 

NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER 

PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23708-2 197 

From: Case Reviewers 
To:  Chairman, Board of Correction of Naval Records, 

~e~jartrnent of the Navy, Washington, D.C. 20370-2197 

Subi: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS IN THE CASE OF 

Ref:  (a)  Your ltr dtd 05 JUL 00 

Encl: (1) 

BCNR file 

1.  Pursuant to reference (a) a review of enclosure (1) was conducted to form opinions 

about the subject petitioner's claims that he suffered fiom Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder at the time of his service and that this was a significant contributing factor to 
the misconduct that lead to his discharge. 

2.  Facts of the case: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

The petitioner served in the United States Marine Corps fiom 15 November 
1966 until 03 September 1969. He served in Vietnam between September 
1967 and November 1968 during which time he served in combat and was 
wounded in the line of duty. 

Prior to arrival in Vietnam in 1967 the service member was found guilty ~f 
breaking restriction after an involvement in a physical altercation with other 
service members. 

At the time of his discharge in 1969 he received an other than honorable 
discharge based on a conviction for disobedience and several periods of 
unauthorized absence (UA) that occurred after his return from Vietnam. This 
was later changed to a general discharge under honorable conditions upon 
review in August 1977. 

Following discharge the patient received a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder related to his prior military service while under treatment through 
the V e t e m  Administration. 
". 

3.  The following opinions were submitted: 

The evidence of the record indicates that the petitioner suffers fiom 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is impossible based on the available 
evidence to give the exact time of onset of this condition; however, 
given the patient's personal account and combat history, it is very likely 
that onset occurred while he was on active duty. 

. 
-- -- 
It is possible that PTSD was a significant contributing factor to the 
patient's misconduct that occurred after September 1967; however, due 
to the lack of supporting documentation this cannot be determined with 
certainty. The misconduct that occurred prior to September 1967 is not 
likely to have been related to PTSD since the service member had not 
been in combat before that time. 

, 

If  the petitioner's medical record had been available, a more definitive 
opinion may have been possible. 

4.  This review was conducted by L- 
USN. 

LCD-MC, 

MC, USNR under the supervision of 

LCDR MC L ~ N