Docket No. 260-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USN, XXX-XX- 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, “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 (2) Court Memorandum NAVPERS 1070/607 DCN 009500132P (3) Advisory Opinion of 9 February 2021 (4) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the U.S. Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that her bad conduct discharge characterization of service be upgraded to honorable. The Petitioner also requested the removal of enclosure (2), a court memorandum found in her official military personnel file, which contains her name and social security number, but she contends appears to be related to the court-martial of another Sailor. As noted below, the Board voted to deny the Petitioner’s request to upgrade her discharge characterization, but the Board voted to grant relief and direct the removal of enclosure (2) from the Petitioner’s OMPF. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 March 2021, 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 Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, including 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 the 9 February 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’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 9 July 97. On 3 December 1999, she was convicted by a special court-martial for two instances of larceny and two instances of obtaining services by fraud. As a result of her court-martial sentencing, she was awarded a bad conduct discharge, which was executed on 21 November 2000. c. The Petitioner included with her petition a letter from Navy Personnel Command (NPC) to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA), which stated that the Petitioner had been discharged due to a lengthy period of unauthorized absence, drug abuse, and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature. NPC attached enclosure (2) to its letter to the VA, which described convictions for stealing two cars and use of marijuana and included a male pronoun in the description. There is no indication that the Petitioner was charged with theft of cars or use of marijuana. The crimes for which the Petitioner was convicted are set forth in a convening authority’s action, which is also included in the Petitioner’s OMPF. d. The Petitioner contends that her discharge characterization of service should be upgraded because she was depressed before enlistment in the Navy due to the deaths of two of her cousins and enlisted in the Navy because she was “trying to run away from the sadness,” and that she fell in with a bad group of people. She also included medical records demonstrating that she incurred a traumatic brain injury from a car accident on 10 January 2015, and a brain tumor was found as part of the work-up for her TBI. She also provided documents demonstrating that she developed PTSD after her car accident in January 2015. e. In light of the Petitioner’s contention relating to her mental health, the Board requested the 9 February 2021 AO, which found as follows: Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Throughout her military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative processing there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Petitioner’s diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, Depression, and Anxiety all stemmed from events that occurred fifteen years after her discharge from military service. f. The AO thus concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of her military service, or her inservice misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, in view of references (b) through (e), in view of the report of the AO, as well as a review of the entirety of Petitioner’s OMPF, the Board found the existence of an error or injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board concluded that the court memorandum at enclosure (2) does not belong to the Petitioner and that it should be removed from her OMPF. With respect to Petitioner’s request that her discharge characterization be upgraded, after careful consideration, the Board determined that the potentially mitigating factors that the Petitioner provided were insufficient to warrant relief. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: The documents contained at enclosure (2) be removed from the Petitioner’s OMPF, and that no further action be granted. 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.