Docket No: 3232-20 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo) (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) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 (Kurta Memo) (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 (Wilkie Memo) 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 upgrade his characterization of service and to make other conforming changes to his DD Form 214. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 April 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, to include the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta 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 an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 1 June 2000. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychological or neurological conditions or symptoms. On 26 January 2001 Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the wrongful use of a controlled substance, failing to obey a lawful order, and two separate specifications of unauthorized absence totaling nine days. d. Following the NJP, Petitioner’s command notified him that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Petitioner waived his right to request an administrative board. In the interim, Petitioner’s separation physical examination noted excessive worry, depression, alcohol abuse, personality disorder, and bipolar on the part of Petitioner. Ultimately, on 2 March 2001 Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. e. In short, Petitioner contended that he was suffering from certain mental health conditions related to a service-connected head injury he suffered. Petitioner further argued that such mental health conditions were a causative factor for the behavior underlying his separation and OTH discharge. f. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued a medical opinion on 15 March 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that Petitioner provided documentation of an in-service major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosis, as well as a hospitalization for suicidal ideation. The Ph.D. also observed that Petitioner was subsequently diagnosed with a personality disorder, however, the Ph.D. noted that Petitioner’s depressive symptoms remained consistent despite his change in diagnosis. The Ph.D. also noted that all of Petitioner’s misconduct occurred a month after his MDD diagnosis. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that Petitioner’s mental health diagnoses gave credibility to his contention that his misconduct was attributable to his mental health conditions and should mitigate his discharge. CONCLUSION: Upon review and liberal consideration of all the evidence of record and in light of the favorable AO, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos. Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board felt that Petitioner’s diagnosed mental health conditions mitigated the misconduct used to characterize his discharge. The Board concluded that the Petitioner’s mental health-related conditions and/or symptoms as possible causative factors in the misconduct underlying his discharge request and characterization were not outweighed by the severity of Petitioner’s misconduct. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been under OTH conditions, and that a discharge upgrade to “general (under honorable conditions)” (GEN) is appropriate at this time. The Board was not willing to grant an honorable discharge characterization and believed that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. The Board determined that an honorable discharge was appropriate only if the Sailor’s service was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. The Board concluded by opining that significant negative aspects of the Petitioner’s conduct and/or performance outweighed the positive aspects of his military record even under the liberal consideration standards for mental health conditions, and that a GEN discharge characterization was appropriate. Additionally, in light of the Wilkie Memo, the Board still similarly concluded after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, that the Petitioner only merits a GEN characterization of service and no higher. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s character of service be changed to “General (Under Honorable Conditions),” the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” the separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” and the reentry code be changed to “RE-1J.” Petitioner shall be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 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 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.