From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 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 (AO) of 26 Mar 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service be upgraded to general due to his diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In light of current guidelines as reflected in references (b) through (d), his case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 February 2020, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the petition, relevant portions of the naval records, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and the AO provided by a qualified Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to the Petitioner. 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 5 October 1966. He served in from March 1967 to April 1968. On 5 June 1969, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 80 days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 30 June 1969, Petitioner began a period of UA that lasted 205 days, ending with his apprehension on 21 January 1970. He submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of service to avoid trail by court-martial. However, his request was denied, and on 30 March 1970, he began another period of UA that lasted 462 days, ending with his apprehension on 10 December 1970. On 23 December 1970, he submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. Prior to submitting his 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. Subsequently, his request for discharge was granted and on 8 January 1971, he was discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service to avoid trial by court-martial. As a result of this action, he was spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. c. On 8 May 2013, the Board for Correction of Navy Records review Petitioner characterization of service with no change. The Board concluded the factors of his case were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge given his misconduct, which resulted in NJP for a lengthy period of UA, and the referral of charges to a court-martial for two additional lengthy periods of UA and his request for discharge to avoid trial. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to the Petitioner when his request for discharge was approved. d. Petitioner states that he is a combat veteran with a Purple Heart with one gold star. He was highly affected by his experiences, developed PTSD, and a result of his PTSD, he went UA on multiple occasions. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) diagnosed him with combat PTSD and opined that his UA’s were likely a symptom of his PTSD. He believes his discharge was an injustice because his PTSD was a major mitigating factor in his misconduct. e. Enclosure (2), an AO from a qualified Navy mental health professional, that states that Petitioner was deployed to . In April 1967, the Petitioner stepped on a metal stick while on patrol and injured his foot, receiving a Purple Heart medal. When it became infected, he was sent to a hospital in for treatment until approximately July 1967, when he returned to and participated in additional combat operations. In March 1968, the Petitioner received a second combat-related injury when his left arm was struck by a fragment of a mortar round and was awarded a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart. In his current request for review of his discharge characterization, the Petitioner submitted disability benefits questionnaire from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which notes that the Petitioner meets diagnostic criteria for PTSD from his combat experiences. The Petitioner submitted a personal statement that his squad was killed in June 1967, while he was recovering from his first combat injury in a hospital in. When he returned to and learned that his squad had died, he began demonstrating symptoms of PTSD, including experiencing guilt and hopelessness, and engaging in reckless behaviors such as heavy drinking and UA. The Petitioner also submitted a 2017 letter from a civilian psychiatrist noting that he has a diagnosis of PTSD from combat-related stress for which he receives medication treatment. No additional information was submitted. The AO concluded that Petitioner does have a diagnosis of PTSD related to military service. Additionally, it is reasonable to attribute the Petitioner’s misconduct to PTSD. There is no evidence that the Petitioner engaged in misconduct prior to his combat deployment and his misconduct is all associated with UA, which could be reasonably conceptualized as PTSD avoidance symptoms. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it is opined that there is evidence that the Petitioner’s misconduct should be attributed to PTSD. f. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board 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 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. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, which result in NJP for a lengthy period of UA, the referral of charges to two courts-martial for two additional lengthy periods of UA, and Petitioner’s request for discharge. However, based upon his overall record of service, and in light of enclosure (2), relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “General (under honorable conditions).” The Board’s decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence that, Petitioner has a post-service diagnosis of PTSD, there is evidence that his misconduct could be attributed to PTSD, and that it is reasonable to attribute his UA following his deployment to Vietnam to avoidance symptoms consistent with PTSD. RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 8 January 1971, he received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. That Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. That no further relief be granted. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That upon request, the DVA is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 21 September 2018. 4. It is certified that 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. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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 matter.