DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 149-18/ 1150-16 MAR 26 2019 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) BCNR Exec Dir ltr JDR Docket No: 1150-16 of 14 Mar 17 (c) SECDEF memo of 3 Sep 14 "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD" (d) PDUSD memo of 25 Aug 17 "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests By Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" (e) USECDEF memo, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations," of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (NR20180000149) (2) Advisory Opinion of 14 Mar 18 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting an upgrade to his characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 13 December 2018, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that no corrective action should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner's application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of his naval record, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and the enclosed 14 March 2018 advisory opinion (AO). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Although the enclosure was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 19 January 1944. It appears that he served without disciplinary incident until 10 June 1944, when he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for public intoxication. On 29 August 1944, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for an unauthorized absence (UA) of 20 days, and he was sentenced to 45 days' confinement. After arriving in in January 1945, he sustained injuries from a gunshot wound to his shoulder from enemy fire on 9 March 1945, and he was medically evacuated to the continental United States on 23 March 1945. On 2 July 1945, Petitioner was convicted by SCM for a five-day UA and was sentenced to 30 days' confinement. On 21 August 1945, he was convicted by deck court for being incapacitated for duty. Petitioner's record is incomplete in that it does not contain all the documents pertaining to his administrative discharge, but review of his record indicates that he was discharged on 24 April 1946 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service by reason of convenience of the government. d. On 14 March 2017, the Board denied Petitioner's 1 February 2016 application. See reference (b). e. In his request for reconsideration to the Board, enclosure (1), Petitioner requests a change to his general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service to honorable. Petitioner contends that, in light of his combat service, his post-service good conduct and accomplishments, and his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), it is unjust to continue to characterize his service as general (under honorable conditions). f. In support of his request, Petitioner submitted as new evidence an undated Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) letter from a DVA psychologist and a DVA psychology post-doctoral fellow concluding that, based on their evaluation of Petitioner, that Petitioner met the criteria for PTSD prior to his discharge, and that "[t]here is a definite, and most likely causative, nexus between his military service and traumatic loss of his brother in combat, his symptoms of his [PTSD], and his misconduct that preceded his discharge." Petitioner also submitted as new evidence an additional written statement, dated 18 December 2017, detailing his Iwo Jima combat history and wounding, his evacuation and convalescence, his brother's subsequent death in combat, and his depression and misconduct. g. The Board considered Petitioner's request in light of the Secretary of Defense's memorandum, "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" of 3 September 2014, reference (c), and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017, reference (d). h. As part of the Board's review, a qualified Navy mental health professional also reviewed Petitioner's request and provided the Board with an AO, enclosure (2), regarding his assertion that he suffered from PTSD. The AO determined that "it is certainly feasible that given [Petitioner's] combat exposure and having been wounded," he could have "developed legitimate symptoms of PTSD over time," and that "[t]hese symptoms could have been exacerbated by the death of his brother." The AO noted, however, that Petitioner's misconduct involving public drunkenness and UA occurred before his deployment. Nevertheless, the AO concluded that there is sufficient evidence to attribute Petitioner's post-service PTSD diagnosis to his military service, adding, however, that his misconduct could only be partially attributed to PTSD. (The AO was provided to Petitioner on 16 March 2018, and he was given 30 days in which to submit a response. When he did not provide a response, his case was submitted to the Board for consideration.) BOARD CONCLUSION: The Board determined that the additional documentation Petitioner submitted, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board weighed all potentially mitigating factors and considered Petitioner's previous contentions that he had served your country honorably after enlisting at 17 years of age, received a Purple Heart Medal as a combat veteran, and had no criminal record since discharge. The Board also considered his post-service record of dedication to teaching students at the junior high, high school, and junior college level but noted that he did not provide supporting documentation. The Board also noted Petitioner's lifetime membership in the Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Lastly, the Board considered Petitioner's previous explanations for his unauthorized absences. Specifically, the Board considered his contention that he extended his time at home in the summer of 1944 while on a three-day pass because his brother, who was being deployed to the European theater, was home on furlough. The Board also considered Petitioner's contention that his second UA was a result of his need to be with his family after the death of his brother in combat. The Board concurred with the AO and determined that Petitioner's 2 July 1945 SCM conviction and his 21 August 1945 NJP could be attributed to PTSD, but also concurred with the AO that the misconduct prior to his January 1945 arrival in cannot be said to be a result of PTSD. The Board thus determined that Petitioner's pre-deployment misconduct, which resulted in NJP on 10 June 1944 and a SCM conviction on 29 August 1944, warranted his general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's request for correction to his record be denied, and that no corrective action be taken. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCLUSION: In consideration of references (c) through (e), and taking into account the findings of the Board, the Executive Director found that clemency is warranted in Petitioner's case. The Executive Director took particular note of Petitioner's diagnosed service-connected PTSD; his 19 days of combat on , culminating in his gunshot wound inflicted by enemy action, and his Purple Heart Medal, evacuation, hospitalization, and lengthy convalescence; his youth and immaturity at the time of his misconduct; the death of his brother in combat while Petitioner was convalescing; the circumstances of his misconduct, which involved relatively minor, non-violent disorders and military offenses, two of which preceded his combat deployment and the other two of which occurred while he was convalescing in a naval hospital; Petitioner's subsequent good conduct until his discharge eight months later; the fact that his misconduct occurred over 74 years ago, and that he is now over 91 years old; and his post-service conduct and accomplishments. The Executive Director thus concluded that, based on the facts of Petitioner's case, clemency is warranted under reference (e). Accordingly, the Executive Director found that Petitioner's record should be changed to reflect an honorable characterization of service. In view of the above, the Executive Director recommends the following corrective action. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to show he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. That no further corrective action be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 27 December 2017. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Executive Director Reviewed, Executive Director Recommendation Approved (Honorable Characterization of Service)