Docket No: 1319-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 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 (e) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to reflect his character of service as “general (under honorable conditions)” and his narrative reason for separation as “other designed physical or mental conditions.” 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 March 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo), the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 February 1989. Petitioner subsequently completed this enlistment with an honorable characterization of service on 18 September 1992 and reenlisted on 19 September 1992 d. During a urinalysis based on probable cause, Petitioner’s urine sample tested positive for a controlled substance. e. As a result of a positive urinalysis for a controlled substance, on 6 November 1992, Petitioner was notified that he was being recommended for administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Petitioner was advised of, and waived his procedural rights to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). f. Petitioner’s commanding officer then forwarded the administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending that Petitioner be administratively discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. g. The SA approved the CO’s discharge recommendation, and directed that Petitioner be administratively separated from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. On 11 December 1992, Petitioner was discharged. h. Petitioner contends that he was suffering from signs and symptoms of an undiagnosed and untreated severe depression, and PTSD at the time of his discharge proceedings. Petitioner further contends the following: 1) From August 1990 through February 1991, he experienced the development of specific PTSD symptoms following a series of highly stressful and psychologically traumatic events that were beyond the range of usual human experience; 2) The ADB proceedings were conducted under improper and inequitable standards by not allowing him to appear before an ADB, nor was he provided the required “Notice of intent to initiate administrative separation proceedings;” 3) He should have been offered an opportunity to undergo substance abuse treatment, and given a mental health evaluation prior to initiating the administrative separation proceedings; 4) At the time of his administrative separation proceedings he was bewildered, confused, suffering from severe depression, and PTSD; he signed whatever documents were put in front of him; he was not in his right mind; and 5) His misconduct was committed while he was not on duty, and there is no showing that the underlying misconduct was service related, nor found to have adversely affected the overall quality of his service rendered. i. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and available records and provided an AO dated 23 February 2021. The AO concluded by opining that, although it cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, Petitioner’s time line of proclaimed traumatic event, subsequent NJP, and PTSD diagnosis from the Bureau of Prisons lend credibility to his contention. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e). The Board, applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered from PTSD, which mitigated but did not excuse Petitioner’s misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded Petitioner’s characterization of service shall be changed to “general (under honorable conditions)” and narrative reason for separation changed to “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicating that on 11 December 1992, Petitioner was discharged with a character of service as “general (under honorable conditions)” and narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority.” No further action be granted. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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 Regulation, 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.