DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4673-20 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER SN , USN, 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Advisory Opinion of 5 Apr 21 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). He also impliedly requested that the separation authority, separation code and narrative reason for discharge be changed. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 7 June 2020, 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, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (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 the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to Petitioner. 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 5 April 1988. c. On 5 November 1988, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a brief period of unauthorized absence (UA) and missing ship’s movement. d. On 15 March 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding UA and missing ship’s movement. He was warned that further deficiencies in his performance and/or conduct could result in administrative discharge action. e. On 4 April 1991, Petitioner received NJP for 3 specifications of UA totaling 19 days, and missing ship’s movement. f.On 22 April 1991, Petitioner was notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After being afforded his procedural rights, Petitioner indicated that he objected to the separation, but did not elect to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. g. On 23 April 1991, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that he receive a general discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. In his recommendation, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) stated that Petitioner’s failure to comply with accepted military standards had caused him to become an administrative burden to his division and to the command. However, because of the circumstances surrounding his violations and his otherwise acceptable performance during his three years onboard, his CO opined that his violations were a result of poor judgement and not by design, and strongly recommended that Petitioner receive a general characterization of service. h. On 26 April 1991, the separation authority directed that Petitioner be separated from the Navy with a general characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. i. On 3 May 1991, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with general characterization of service due to commission of a serious offense. j.In his application, Petitioner stated that at the time of his discharge, he was not given a mental health assessment. He believes that if this were to happen now, his CO would have no choice but to request that he seek mental health treatment and professional help, rather than discharging him. He believes his discharge was unfair and that he was punished for what happened to him, which was not his fault, but a result of the experiences he went through. Further, he asserts he was not offered the same mental health treatment that is offered today, and he experienced significant personal and family problems that affected his ability to serve. k. Enclosure (2) is an AO provided to the board by the Board’s mental health professional. The AO concluded the preponderance of objective evidence established that Petitioner suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service, and his post-traumatic event and in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e) intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, and does not condone his actions. However, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, to include above satisfactory performance marks in conduct, in light of enclosure (2), and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of changing his characterization of service to “Honorable” should be granted. Additionally, the separation authority, separation code, and narrative reason for discharge should be changed. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected by showing that on 3 May 1991; he received an “Honorable” characterization of service. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to read “Secretarial Authority.” That the separation authority read “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That the separation code read “JFF.” That the Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). No further action be granted. 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 Regulation, 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. 6/15/2021 Executive Director