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 16 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, which was previously provided to Petitioner.  Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, and Petitioner did do so.   
 
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 Board determined that Petitioner’s personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. 
 
     d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 17 April 1967.  The Petitioner’s original serial number was     
 
     e. On 23 September 1968, Petitioner commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from his assigned duty station, the   Petitioner’s UA terminated after 121 days on 22 January 1969 with his arrest by civilian authorities in    
 
     f. On 6 February 1969 Petitioner was convicted at a Special Court-Martial for his 121-day UA.  As punishment, he received six months of confinement, forfeitures of pay, a reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted paygrade (E-1), and a discharge from the Navy with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).  On 8 May 1969 Petitioner waived his rights to request restoration and instead requested execution of his BCD.  Upon the completion of SPCM appellate review in his case, on 27 June 1969 Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a BCD and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.  On 6 April 1976 the Naval Discharge Review Board denied Petitioner’s initial application for relief.  
 
     g. At the time of Petitioner’s separation from the Navy, his overall active duty trait average was 3.30 in conduct as assigned on his periodic evaluations.  Navy regulations in place at the time of his discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct/military behavior to be considered for a fully honorable characterization of service.   
 
     h. In short, Petitioner contended that he was suffering from PTSD due to his seven-month deployment in the Western Pacific during the Vietnam War.  Petitioner contended that his PTSD symptoms were as a result of experiencing, witnessing, and learning about combat-related trauma and other life-threatening or dehumanizing events during his deployment.  Petitioner argued that PTSD was a causative factor for the behavior underlying his BCD. 
 
     i. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO on 22 March 2021.  The Ph.D. initially observed that Petitioner’s misconduct occurred after the purported trauma and appeared to be his only act of misconduct.  The Ph.D. determined that it was reasonable to attribute his misconduct to avoidance symptoms associated with PTSD.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD on active duty and that Petitioner’s misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD.  
 
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 PTSD mitigated the misconduct used to characterize his discharge.  The Board concluded that the Petitioner’s PTSD-related conditions and/or symptoms as possible causative factors in the misconduct underlying his discharge 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.     
 
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 merits a discharge upgrade to GEN and no higher.   
 
Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s reentry code.  The Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on the totality of his circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge 
 
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,” and the separation code be changed to “JFF.”  
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. 

4/25/2021
Executive Director