Docket No: 0563-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards 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 TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) PDUSD 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20200000563 of 9 April 2020 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that the Board change his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 May 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) from a 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 interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 August 2002. On 10 December 2002, he was counseled concerning physical conditions which interfered in the performance of his duties. On 24 January 2003, the Officer in Charge, Sports Medicine and Reconditioning Therapy, diagnosed Petitioner with right hip pain and hip flexor pain. His bone scans presented normal findings but, despite rehabilitative efforts, Petitioner continued to experience pain in his pelvis. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate him for the convenience of the government due to a condition, not a disability. After waiving his procedural rights, Petitioner’s Commanding Officer recommended he be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions (GEN), characterization of service by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition, not a disability. The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed a GEN discharge by reason of a condition, not a disability. On 19 March 2003, Petitioner was so discharged. d. Petitioner contends he sought Captain’s Mast or an audience with a Judge Advocate to explain his position as a conscientious objector but was denied. He further contends that due to his conscientious objector stance, he was forced to “endure sleep deprivation, starvation, stress positions, heavy labor, six or more beatings, and interrogations.” Petitioner contends, in detail, that “they tried to question my beliefs and force me to contradict myself and/or change my mind.” Petitioner contends he suffered several beatings and was forced to listen as other objectors were “being tortured.” He also contends that after one of the beatings, he was forced to go on a run with an injured hip and after a mile, he began vomiting because he was in so much pain. He contends he was denied treatment repeatedly. Petitioner contends his traumatic treatment resulted in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). e. Petitioner further contends his service should be characterized as honorable (HON) because he “never disobeyed an order or broke arule” but was onlygiven a GEN characterization of service because he“requested a path that myNCOs did not agree with.” f. At the time of discharge, Petitioner’s average PRO/CON marks for the enlistment were 4.3/4.3. g. As part of the Board’s review, a mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 9 April 2020. The AO states “chronic pain is not a symptom of PTSD” and “it is not likely that Petitioner’s failure to respond to treatment for his hip flexor pain should be attributed to PTSD symptoms.” CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The Board concluded that the decision in this case is not based on references (b) through (d), but on reasoning independent of whether the Petitioner suffers from PTSD. The Board, concurring with the AO, concluded Petitioner’s physical pain and inability to rehabilitate his hip was not a symptom of PTSD. However, the Board noted the lack of misconduct or poor performance documented in his record and his 4.3/4.3 PRO/CONs and concluded Petitioner’s service record warranted an HON characterization of service. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “honorable.” That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 9 January 2020. 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.