DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8319-18 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 w/ attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No:NR20180008319 of 11 Jul 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Sailor, filed enclosure (1), requesting his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 September 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 his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, found 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 entered active service in the Navy on 19 September 1988. On 11 December 1992, he reenlisted for four years. He served without disciplinary incident until 1 May 1996 when he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended upon his surrender on 14 May 1996. He was convicted by summary court-martial on 12 July 1996 of the UA, making false official statements, and receiving stolen property. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After consulting counsel and waiving his right to an administrative separation board, his commanding officer recommended discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct. The discharge authority approved this recommendation. On 16 October 1996, Petitioner received an OTH discharge. d. Petitioner’s request for an upgrade to his characterization of service was reviewed in consideration of his contention that his mental health condition was directly responsible for the action that resulted in his OTH discharge. His 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 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” memorandum of 25 August 2017. e. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified Navy mental health professional reviewed Petitioner’s request and provided the Board an advisory opinion (AO) on 11 July 2019. The AO confirmed Petitioner had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) attributed to military service, but the AO stated there was insufficient evidence to attribute Petitioner’s misconduct to a mental health condition. The AO specifically stated “while it does seem Petitioner was experiencing a grief reaction which developed into depression, it seems difficult to attribute his behaviors of theft, falsification of documents, and extended UA to symptoms of complicated grief or depression.” The AO concluded that post- service medical records describing the specific link between Petitioner’s mental health symptoms and his misconduct are required to render an alternate opinion. Petitioner submitted a rebuttal response explaining how he felt his misconduct was related to his depression, which was provided to the Board for consideration. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Petitioner served honorably during his first enlistment from 19 September 1988 until 10 December 1992, but his DD Form 214 does not have the required language in block 18 to document his continuous honorable service. The Board found that this information should be added. The Board, relying upon the AO, determined there was insufficient evidence to attribute Petitioner’s misconduct to his diagnosed mental health condition. The Board, therefore, found no change to his final characterization of service was warranted. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215) to indicate the addition of the following language to Block 18: CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19 SEPTEMBER 1988 UNTIL 10 DECEMBER 1992. No further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the VA be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 7 September 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. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and, having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.