DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 From: Chairman, Board To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER PFC USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) 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” (c) PDUSD Memo of 24 Feb 16 “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” (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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Advisory Opinion of 22 Apr 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service be upgraded to General (under honorable conditions). Enclosures (1) and (2). 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 November 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of the naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional. 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 regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 14 April 1969. On 13 October 1969, he disembarked in and participated in operations against enemy forces from 14 October 1969 to 17 September 1970. On 27 February 1970, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two instances of failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 11 March 1970, Petitioner was counseled concerning his absence from his command and the consequences he would face if this conduct continued. On 14 March 1970, he received NJP for disobeying a lawful order. Later that day, he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) until apprehended on 24 June 1970. On 16 July 1970, he submitted a request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service to escape trail by court-martial for UA from 14 March 1970 to 24 June 1970. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, he conferred with a qualified military lawyer, was advised of his rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. His request for discharge was granted on 29 July 1970. On 28 September 1970, Petitioner departed . On 2 October 1970, he was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service in lieu of trial by court-martial. c. Petitioner contends that his discharge was caused by combat related PTSD. He provided a legal brief, his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), personal statement, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Priority Group Change, the Hagel memo, VA Consult Request, and Progress Notes. d. According to Enclosure (2), Petitioner submitted a personal statement that he incurred PTSD during his combat deployment to . He submitted a September 2011 VA letter offering him group treatment for PTSD based on an intake assessment that listed mental health diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, cognitive disorder not otherwise specified, and alcohol dependence in full sustained remission. The traumatic stressors for the PTSD diagnosis described in the PTSD evaluation pertain to combat-related stressors from Vietnam. He submitted November 2012 VA mental health records noting that he has not been granted service-connection for a mental health disability. However, Petitioner received PTSD treatment from the VA from September 2011 to February 2012, when he withdrew from treatment. Medical records state that he withdrew from treatment following a few sessions of prolonged exposure therapy, which made him feel like “his head was going to explode.” Petitioner also submitted a December 2012 civilian mental health evaluation listing diagnoses of PTSD and unspecified alcohol dependence. He submitted a July 2017 evaluation by a VA psychologist noting continued diagnoses of PTSD and depressive disorder. Petitioner submitted an October 2017 letter from the VA that he was determined to be a Vietnam-era herbicide-exposed Veteran. e. Additionally, Enclosure (2) notes that a review of Petitioner’s record indicates that he experienced pre-service, childhood abuse and an extensive period of post-service homelessness, both of which could contribute to a diagnosis of PTSD. However, the traumatic events described in Petitioner’s statement and selected for treatment by the VA focus on his combat-related trauma exposure from Vietnam. Additionally, in-service, military medical providers noted that Petitioner was experiencing anxiety within two months of his deployment to It seems reasonable to attribute Petitioner’s PTSD to military service or, at a minimum, it exacerbated any undiagnosed PTSD symptoms from childhood trauma. Also, Petitioner’s misconduct follows his in-service recognition of anxiety and could be attributed to symptoms of PTSD. Unauthorized absence and failure to go to the appointed place of duty could be conceptualized as avoidance symptoms. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, there is evidence that Petitioner was suffering from PTSD during his military service and that his misconduct could be attributed to symptoms of PTSD. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, based upon his record of service, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to general. The Board notes Petitioner’s conduct and does not condone his actions. However, the Board’s decision is based on Petitioner’s evidence as reflected by comments in enclosure (2), that he was suffering from a mental health condition at the time of his service, which contributed to his misconduct and subsequent OTH discharge. The Board felt that Petitioner’s mental health condition should mitigate the misconduct he committed while on active duty since this condition outweighed the severity of the misconduct. The Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as OTH and re-characterization to “General (under honorable conditions)” is now more appropriate. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 2 October 1970, he received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 2 August 2018. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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 matt