DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8778-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy 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 MilitaryDischarge 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 7 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service from the Navy be upgraded to general or honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 February 2020, 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 14 June 1990. During the period from 21 April 1992 to 13 July 1992, he received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violating Articles 80 (attempted fraud), 86 (17 days of unauthorized absence), 91 (disorderly conduct), 107 (intentional falsification of government identification card), and 134 (two instances of obtaining the use of a calling card under false pretenses and disrespect) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 14 July 1992, his case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he receive an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to commission of a serious offense. The request was approved and it was directed that Petitioner be separated from the Navy with an OTH discharge due to misconduct. On 26 August 1992, he was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. c. Petitioner contends that he had just returned from the Persian Gulf and was having some health and mental issues, which caused him not to report at his place of duty for 14 days. He also added that he has had numerous medical issues since his discharge, and was not aware that he could apply for an upgrade to his characterization of service. He provided character statements and a personal statement regarding the trauma he incurred during his military service, which consisted of landing on a carrier while at sea, being harnessed onto a ship by helicopter when seas where rough and the mark was missed. He states that he vomited, and urinated on himself, that two other ships were hit by mines and he went for days without talking to anyone, that while off the coast of Kuwait, he could see through high powered binoculars and see the burning oil fields, and his eyes would burn. He would cry more that he could sleep, and had nightmares that his ship hit a mine. d. Enclosure (2), states that Petitioner reported to sick bay stating that he was “stressed out” and “can’t adapt” to the Navy. The medical officer diagnosed him with situational anxiety secondary to a recent NJP for altering his military identification card to purchase alcohol. He denied mental health symptoms during his separation physical, including depression, excessive worry, trouble sleeping, and nervous trouble of any sort. In his current request for review, the Petitioner submitted a February 2019 treatment letter in which he was diagnosed with PTSD; major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms; and alcohol dependence, uncomplicated. He reported PTSD beginning in 1992, when he was stationed on a mine-seeking ship and feared for his life. He submitted a personal statement regarding the trauma he incurred during his military service. The Petitioner has a diagnosis of PTSD that a civilian mental health provider has determined should be attributed to military service. However, at this time, there is insufficient evidence to attribute his misconduct to unrecognized symptoms of PTSD. The AO further opined that, while UA can be an avoidance symptom of PTSD, it can also have many other causes. The AO also specifically noted that it is also difficult to consider how fraud is a symptom of PTSD. Although not diagnosed during military service, it is likely that the Petitioner was suffering from alcohol use disorder. There is some evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD, as the Petitioner served without apparent incident for almost two years before receiving an NJP. However, additional records, such as post-service treatment records describing the Petitioner’s PTSD symptoms and their specific relation to his military misconduct, are required to render an opinion. The AO determined that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to attribute the Petitioner’s misconduct to a mental health condition other than alcohol use disorder. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and 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 overall record of service, and although there is insufficient evidence to attribute the Petitioner’s misconduct to a mental health condition other than alcohol use disorder, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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). TheBoard 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 the Petitioner’s service as having been 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 26 August 1992, 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 10 October 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 theBoard’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.