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) USD 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) USD 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 (3) Advisory Opinion of 21 Mar 2021 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 characterization to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). As described below, the Board recommended denying the Petitioner’s requested relief, but recommended granting a different form of relief in the form of correcting the Petitioner’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), by noting the period of Petitioner’s continuous honorable service in Block 18 of the form. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 May 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 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 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 21 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by 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 5 September 1991. On 18 March 1994, he received nonjudicial punishment for use of provoking words and indecent assault. On 19 March 1994, he acknowledged a written administrative remarks reminding him of the Navy’s zero tolerance policy towards use of drugs. On 18 March 1997, he was awarded a Good Conduct Medal. On 17 July 1997, he received nonjudicial punishment for using marijuana. On 26 August 1997, he was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing and his rights in connection therewith. He waived his right to administrative board. On 26 August 1997, the Petitioner waived his right to have an evaluation for drug dependency and treatment. On 27 August 1997, his commanding officer recommended that he be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service due to drug abuse. On 29 August 1997, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 5 September 1997, he was so discharged. c. The Petitioner contends that his brother died in 1996 during his second enlistment, which caused him mental and emotional stress that became overwhelming. The Petitioner did not provide attachments or materials supporting his contention or concerning post-service achievements. d. In connection with his assertions of PTSD, the Board requested the enclosure (3) advisory opinion (AO), which was provided to the Petitioner, and to which he did not provide a response. The AO was considered unfavorable to Petitioner. The AO reviewed the Petitioner’s available in-service records and found that they “did not contain evidence of a mental health conditions, or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a severe mental health condition.” The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with or suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or that his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a 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 specific relief that Petitioner requested, there does not exist an error or injustice warranting relief. The Board concurred with the finding of the AO, and also determined that the Petitioner did not provide materials to support relief based on the factors set forth in the Wilkie Memo. Upon review of the Petitioner’s DD Form 214, however, the Board noted that it did not include, in its Block 18, the period that Petitioner maintained continuous honorable service during a prior enlistment, and the Board determined that the form should include this information. 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, with the following noted in Block 18 Remarks, “Continuous Honorable Service from 5 Sep 91- 31 Mar 96.” 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. 6/2/2021 Executive Director