Docket No: 494-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER, , USMC, 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 9 Feb 21 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), stating that he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during his military service. He is requesting an upgrade of his other than honorable (OTH) discharge. Further, he also impliedly requests that the narrative reason for his discharge, separation authority, and reentry code be changed. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 March 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 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), 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 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 10 July 1967. c. During the period from 19 December 1967 to 18 May 1968, Petitioner participated in five combat operations and was wounded by shrapnel on two occasions while in Vietnam. d. On 24 May 1969, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 17 days of unauthorized absence (UA). e. On 11 December 1969, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of 21 Days of UA. f. On 14 April 1970, Petitioner began a period of UA that lasted 315 days, ending with his apprehension on 23 February 1971. He requested to be discharged for the good of the service. g. On 17 March 1971, Petitioner’s commanding officer forwarded his case to the separation authority recommending Petitioner’s undesirable discharge (UD). h. On 26 March 1971, a staff judge advocate forwarded Petitioner’s case to the separation authority recommending approval, finding the case to be sufficient in law and fact. The separation authority concurred and directed that Petitioner receive a UD due to unfitness. i. On 5 April 1971, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service for the good of the service. j. During Petitioner’s service, he received the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnamese Service Medal with one star, Vietnamese Campaign Medal, two Purple Heart Medals, and Combat Action Ribbon. k. On 17 August 1978, under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program, Petitioner’s characterization of service was changed to General (under honorable conditions), pursuant to Executive Order 4313. However, discharges awarded under this program do not bestow entitlement to benefits administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). l. On 3 June 2014, this Board reviewed Petitioner’s discharge with no change given his lengthy period of UA. At the time or the review, his Vietnam service, awards, and post-service conduct were all considered, and no claim of PTSD was made. m. On 3 October 2017, this Board again reviewed Petitioner’s discharge with no change. At that time, the AO opined that he suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his service, and he was diagnosed with “SubPTSD,” which most likely implies he had symptoms of PTSD but did not meet the full criteria for the diagnosis. It was determined that the statements and information provided were not enough to substantiate his claim of PTSD at the time of his misconduct. The Board found that even if PTSD existed at the time of his discharge, the seriousness of Petitioner’s misconduct, outweighed any mitigation that would be offered by the PTSD. Petitioner contended he suffered from PTSD, and desired to have his characterization of service changed in order to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits. n. On 26 October 2018, The DVA determined that Petitioner’s service from 10 July 1969 to 5 April 19771, to be honorable for DVA purposes. o. In his current his application, Petitioner stated that he was kept in the Marine Corps after returning from Vietnam, that he has been wounded in service, he was suffering from PTSD, and “they” did not recognize or diagnose his PTSD. Petitioner contended that his discharge had been upgraded once, but the DVA still refuses it, and recently decided to deny his benefits. p. The current AO states that Petitioner’s misconduct, and request for an UD for the good of the service following his third UA, is a common maladaptive behavior of avoidance seen in service members having difficulty adjusting to a return from combat operations. The AO further states that although a prior medical advisory opinion stated he experienced “subPTSD,” that does not preclude similar diagnoses encompassing the trauma experienced by the Petitioner to include Unspecified Stressor or Trauma Related Disorder and Other Stressor or Trauma Related Disorder, all of which would be strongly mitigating for his in-service misconduct and support reconsideration for an upgrade of his discharge characterization. BOARD 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 noted Petitioner’s overall record, including his Vietnam service. The Board also noted Petitioner’s misconduct and does not condone his actions; however, the Board's decision is based on Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from undiagnosed PTSD, and in light of enclosure (2) and given our current understanding of mental health conditions. The Board believes the Petitioner’s PTSD existed at the time of his discharge and weighed its existence as potential mitigation in the misconduct he committed. The Board voted to upgrade Petitioner’s characterization of service to “Honorable” and change his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. BORAD RECOMMENDATION Corrected Petitioner’s naval record to show that he received an Honorable characterization of service consistent with Department of Defense and Marine Corps implementing regulations governing characterization of discharge, with entitlements to those benefits for which such a discharge may qualify, including those benefits administered by the DVA, effective 29 March 2021. That Petitioner’s naval record shall be further corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” That the separation authority read “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214.” That the reenlistment code read “RE-1J.” 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 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.