From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER 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 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD 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) SECDEF memo of 25 Jul 2018 “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 w/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 by upgrading his discharge from general (under other than honorable conditions) to honorable. As set forth below, the Board recommended that the Petitioner be granted relief in the form of upgrading his discharge characterization of service to honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 29 March 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that 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, and references (b) through (e), which include the 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 a 12 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which is cited in its entirety below. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 14 Jul 2000. He commenced a period of unauthorized absence on 15 August 2002 and returned to military control on 3 March 2003. Further details on his unauthorized absence are not available in his official military personnel file. In or about April 2003, the Petitioner submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, which was approved, and on 30 Apr 2003, he was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. In 2018, the Petitioner submitted an application for review of his discharge with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). On 29 August 2018, the NDRB granted the Petitioner relief in the form of upgrading his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions). According to the NDRB’s decision, the Petitioner contended that “his separation was due to immaturity and his mental health condition/PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. Specifically, the Applicant contends his Mental Health stemming from refueling operations conducted during deployment in Arabian Gulf was a mitigating factor coupled with his youth and immaturity resulted in his poor decision to go UA for an extended period of time.” c. In his current petition, the Petitioner makes essentially the same contention that he made before the NDRB, namely, that his PTSD should mitigate his misconduct. In addition, the Petitioner included several letters of support and other clemency materials demonstrating significant post-service accomplishments, as well as medical documentation concerning his PTSD. d. The Board requested, and received, an advisory opinion (AO), which was considered favorable to Petitioner, and stated: Petitioner’s in-service record included no retention warning counseling and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. The NDRB decision, dated 9 July 2018, “considered the length of the Applicant’s UA but gave liberal consideration that mental health was a factor in his faulty reasoning to go UA and delay in returning…found relief in the form of an upgrade in the characterization of service to General…” He also provided ample documentation of his PTSD diagnosis/treatment. e. The AO concluded, “Based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient direct evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health condition.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (e), the Board determined that, with respect to the relief that Petitioner requested, there exists an error or injustice warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that Petitioner’s misconduct during his service should be mitigated by his PTSD. In reaching its decision, the Board noted the clemency materials that the Petitioner submitted, in accordance with reference (e). Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to honorable as well as associated relief in the form of changing his reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority as set forth in more detail below. Accordingly, based on a careful review of all of the facts presented, the Board concludes that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that his discharge at separation was Honorable, that the narrative reason and authority for his separation was Secretarial Authority, his separation code was JFF1, his reentry code was RE-1J; and That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall 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 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.