Docket No: 3639-20 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 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 characterization from other than honorable to general (under honorable conditions). As set forth below, the Board recommended that the Petitioner be granted the relief he requested. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 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, 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 considered a 22 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. 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 26 September 1983. The Petitioner contends that on 13 January 1984, he was falsely charged with a civilian offense of breaking and entering. He was walked off his ship in view of his shipmates. He suffered great embarrassment and humiliation as a result of this occurrence, which he asserts caused him to spiral into depression. On 3 October 1984, he received nonjudicial punishment for use of cocaine. On 7 October 1984, he was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing due to his use of cocaine, and advised that if his separation was approved, his characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions. He waived his right to an administrative board. On 9 October 1986, the Petitioner’s commanding officer transmitted the recommendation to the separation authority. In his transmittal message, the commanding officer wrote that the Petitioner stated he had used the cocaine at a party two to three days prior to drug testing, that he used drugs before, that he cannot promise that he will not use drugs again, and that he did not want to stay in the Navy. On 7 November 1986, the discharge authority directed that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 18 November 1986, he was so discharged. c. The Petitioner contends that he suffered a mental health condition as a result of this false arrest while on his ship. He provided a medical opinion of a psychiatrist who endorsed his claim. In this regard, the Board requested, and received, a 22 March 2021 advisory opinion (AO), which found as follows: Petitioner’s in-service record revealed an enlistment physical devoid of any mental health concerns. Petitioner underwent a Drug/Alcohol evaluation on 6 October 1986. During the evaluation, he admitted his drug use at a party, acknowledged drug use prior to enlistment, and stated he did not have a desire to stop. Petitioner also declined drug treatment, as he did not feel he had a problem. Petitioner’s drug use occurred in October of 1986, after he was arrested in September of 1986, aboard the ship and in front of his shipmates, for a crime he did not commit. He explained after the incident he experienced shame and embarrassment, which resulted in his use of drugs and alcohol. Petitioner provided documentation from a psychiatrist, who opined the arrest was a precursor to Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, which led to Petitioner’s drug use. Petitioner did not have any prior misconduct in his almost three years of service, prior to the drug use, which indicated it was an anomaly for his character. It is common for persons who undergo such an experience as a false arrest to have difficulty processing the experience and resort to maladaptive comping skills (i.e., alcohol and drug use) and to further deny the impact of the incident by denying a substance use problem. d. The AO concluded, “[b]ased on the available evidence, it is my considered opinion there is evidence Petitioner may have exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by this mental health condition.” e. The Petitioner also included several letters of support and character references that addressed his post-service achievements. His letters included a letter from a local judge as well as his town’s mayor. According to these letters, the Petitioner has become a well-regarded citizen and he is respected for his efforts in mentoring, business, community, and family. 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 that, applying reference (e) concerning the application of clemency due to post-service achievements, the Petitioner had demonstrated sufficient achievements to be granted clemency. The Board took particular note of the Petitioner’s efforts in mentoring individuals as well as his efforts in supporting and serving his local community. The Board rejected the findings of the AO as well as the report of the psychiatrist that the Petitioner provided with respect to his alleged mental health condition. In so finding, Board credited the discharge transmittal message of the Petitioner’s commanding officer stating that the Petitioner did not want to stay in the Navy, the timing of the Petitioner’s drug use (ten months after the alleged false accusation), as well as the lack of any contemporaneous medical or other evidentiary support for his claims. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) and no other relief, as set forth below. 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 general (under honorable conditions); 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.