DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7922-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 (c) PDUSD memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) PDUSD memo, “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,” of 25 August 2017 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No: NR20180007922 of 21 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board correct his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service and corresponding changes to his narrative reason for separation. 2. The Board, consisting of, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 October 2019, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO), and documentation provided in rebuttal by 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. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner initially enlisted in the Navy on 10 July 1997 and served honorably until his reenlistment on 17 January 2001. On 18 June 2001, he was convicted by summary court-martial for an unauthorized absence (UA) of 62 days and missing ship’s movement. On 21 May 2002, he was again convicted by SCM for a 45-day UA. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Although the his record is incomplete, a review of his record reveals that after he waived his procedural rights, his commanding officer recommended he be discharged by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed Petitioner be discharged by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 3 July 2002, he was discharged. d. Petitioner contends his discharge is inequitable because he developed a panic disorder and major depression while in service but, when he sought psychiatric treatment, none was provided. When his attacks became more frequent, more severe, and began occurring aboard the ship, Petitioner contends he absented himself without authority in order to seek private treatment. The private medical provider incorrectly diagnosed him with attention-deficient/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prescribed medication which aggravated his condition and “made everything much worse”. Once again, Petitioner fled the ship in an effort to avoid the panic attacks. Petitioner contends he was told by the military that “they could not help me unless I was going to injure myself or others” so he sought treatment at a private psychiatric clinic in where he was diagnosed with major anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Petitioner further contends that, after more than 15 years, he finally lives a “normal life” and is “able to explain in words” what happened during his time in service. He also explains he’s undergone “Brain Core Therapy,” learned he has a “dead zone in part of his brain that may have been caused by a loud blast, and that part of the brain accounts for anxiety, panic disorder, and PTSD”. In support of his contentions and his post-service record, Petitioner submitted advocacy letters from a childhood friend, a former shipmate, and a retired First Sergeant, who is currently a federal law enforcement special agent. e. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided the enclosure (2). The AO noted Petitioner has diagnoses of panic disorder, PTSD, and generalized anxiety disorder but determined there was insufficient evidence to attribute the mental conditions to military service. The AO was forwarded to Petitioner for review and comment on 21 June 2019, and he was given 30 days in which to submit a response. Petitioner submitted an additional statement in rebuttal, which was considered by the Board. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum is to ease the process for Veterans seeking redress and assist the Boards in reaching fair and consistent results in “these difficult cases.” The memorandum describes the difficulty Veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized” mental health conditions. The memorandum further explains that, since mental health conditions were not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many Veterans, and diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, Veterans were constrained in their arguments that mental health conditions should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct underlying their discharge. The Board, applying liberal consideration and noting his misconduct only consisted of UAs, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s mental health condition mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, the Board concluded Petitioner’s record of performance in his second enlistment supported his contention he suffered from a mental health condition which led to his misconduct and the decline in his performance. After consideration of all the factors, the Board determined the misconduct that led to his discharge was mitigated by his mental health condition and warranted both an upgraded characterization of service and corresponding changes to his separation reason, code, and authority. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”. 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 22 August 2018. 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.