DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 3306-00
19 February 2002

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 13 February 2002.
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.

Your allegations of error and

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 20
January 1971 at age 17.
two nonjudicial punishments.
obey a lawful order on two occasions.

The record reflects that you received
The offenses included failure to

On 23 October 1973 you submitted a written request for an
undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for two periods of unauthorized absence totalling 180 days.
  a qualified
Prior to submitting this request you conferred with
military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and
warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge.
action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction
and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and
confinement at hard labor.
discharge on 7 December 1973.

Your request was granted and, as a result of this

You received the undesirable

On 13 April 1999 the Board denied your request for an upgrade of
In May 2000, the Board decided to
the undesirable discharge.

reconsider your case based on the evidence you submitted which
shows that you have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).

An advisory opinion of 9 June 2001 furnished by the Bureau of
a copy of which is attached, opined that
Medicine and Surgery,
the 20 years following your discharge were chaotic at best, and
consistent with someone suffering from PTSD.
stated that you were suffering from PTSD after returning from
Vietnam and that the Board should take this into account when
considering your application.

The opinion further

The Board believed that considerable clemency was

and your two earlier disciplinary

However, the Board concluded that these factors were

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
immaturity, service in Vietnam, and the contention that PTSD was
a contributing factor in the misconduct which led to your
discharge.
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your request for discharge to avoid trial for unauthorized
absences totalling six months,
actions.
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.
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.
concluded that it was insufficiently mitigating to warrant
recharacterization, given the lengthy total period of your
absences.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.

Additionally, the Board

The

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.

2

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

Enclosure

3

MZMORANDUM
Date:
From 
To:

:

09 JUN 01
WCDR MC USNR
‘Board for the Correction 

of Naval Records

Ref: (a)

ltrTRG, Docket 

Chairman, BCNR, 
BCNR File
Service Record
VA/Civilian Psychiatric Record

VAL RECORDS

ICO”

#3306-00, dtd 

07MAYOl

(3)
Per your verbal request and in accordance with ref (a), I have reviewed enclosures

 through (4).

Review of service record indicates that the servicemember did serve for

2-i)
2.
approximately six months in Viet Nam during which time he flew a number of combat
missions as a helicopter gunner. Following his tour he returned to  
AWOL on two occasions for a total of almost 180 days.
dishonorable discharge rather than a court martial.
There is no military medical record to review. Review of the VA and civilian records
3.
indicate several detailed psychological assessments that are consistent with a diagnosis of
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I had to discount several comments due to the clear bias
they presented.
4.
The BCNR file has been supplemented with numerous personal letters attesting to
his disabilities and his ability to have overcome them over the years. The general picture
given is of a limited youth from a dysfunctional family who returned to a Country in denial
about the war.

In a plea bargain he agreed to a

CONUS and shortly went

I am troubled by several parts of this file. There seemingly was no medical

On the other hand the reports from the VA are quite convincing. His troubles did

5.
his AWOL periods he was
evaluation done prior to discharge. He reports that durin
abusing drugs and alcohol, and has included some court 8
ocuments. This also does not
seem to have been evaluated. His combat exposure, though severe, was not at the
same level as other vets have reported.
It is also hard to imagine in this day that for some
20 years he was disabled by his PTSD symptoms but never came to the attention of the
medical establishment. We really have no collateral information regarding these 20 years,
except for his own report.
start following his return from Viet Nam. He did see some fairly
years following his discharge until this friend brought him to the
certainly consistent with someone suffering from PTSD.
treatment over the last seven years and seems to have attained some level of clinical
stability.
In conclusion, while I am not convi
information in the record that I would opin
following his return from Viet Nam. I feel
considering his request.

ruesome scenes. The 20
3
A were chaotic at best, and
He has apparently responded to

there is sufficient
suffering from PTSD
ess into account while

Respectfully Subm