DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 7562-14
17 August 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
6 July 2015. The names and votes of the members of the panel
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, your naval record, and applicable statutes,
regulations, and policies.
Further, regarding your request for a personal appearance, be
advised that Board regulations state that personal appearances
before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the
Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful
purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal
appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on
the evidence of record.
The Board also noted that you should contact Headquarters,
United States Marine Corps, Manpower Management Records and
Performance Branch (MMRP), 2008 Elliot Road, Quantico, VA
22134-5030 to request that administrative corrections be made on
your DD Form 214.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps, began a period of active duty
on 6 January 1975, and served without disciplinary incident for
about ten months. However, on 4 November 1975, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for sleeping on duty. On
26 April 1976, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM)
of assault. You were convicted of grand theft person in civil
court on 28 September 1976 and sentenced to one year in jail and
three years’ probation.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to your civil conviction. At that time
you elected to waive your procedural rights. Your case was
forwarded, recommending an undesirable discharge by reason of
misconduct and the separation authority concurred with the
recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge.
On 14 June 1977, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
The Board also considered your assertions of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and that in-service head trauma caused
your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct which
resulted in NUP, SCM, and a one-year jail sentence based on your
civil conviction for grand theft. The Board considered your
assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of Defense’s
September 3, 2014 guidance to Boards for Correction of Military
records regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans
claiming PTSD. The Board liberally considered whether your
assertions of PTSD and/or head trauma were causative factors in
the misconduct that resulted in your discharge. After full and
careful consideration of the matter, the Board determined that
there was insufficient evidence in the record, and you provided
none, to support a conclusion that a causal relationship with
the PTSD symptoms or head trauma and misconduct existed.
Specifically, the Board concluded that your misconduct was not
caused by your PTSD or a head injury and further determined
that, even if there was a nexus between the PTSD and/or head
trauma and the misconduct, the severity of the misconduct would
substantially outweigh any mitigation created by your PTSD
and/or head trauma. Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
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 within one year from the date of the Board's
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009231
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of misconduct - civilian conviction with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant provides a letter, dated 30 April 2013, to himself from the VA Regional Office, Cheyenne, WY, wherein a VA manager stated the applicant's records showed he received an under other than...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2011. 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00360-01
evidence in available medical records that you were referred for psychiatric evaluation. On 26 August 1980 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for recharacterization of your discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of four NJPs and the serious nature of the charges of which you were convicted by civil authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003209
The applicant's record does not contain and he has not provided any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD-like symptoms during his military service or that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD after his military service. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001942
The applicant requests his military records be corrected to show his voided enlistment as creditable service and that he be issued either an honorable or a general discharge. A DIS form, dated 13 February 1978, provided the following information: a. on 13 August 1975, the applicant was arrested for grand theft; b. on 11 December 1975, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of petty theft, valued at less than $150.00, a misdemeanor of the first degree; c. on 14 January 1976, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04126-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 19 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applications, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board noted that your characterization of service was changed to general under honorable conditions, but concluded that a further change was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11612 14_Redacted
Documentary material considered by of your application, together with all : in support thereof, your naval record, and regulations, and policies record r personality n immaturi heroin, cocaine, amphetamine uana, a diethylamide (LSD). Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to charige it now. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02243-09
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probabie material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08284-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7018S. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. 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.