DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6527-20 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 PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 (c) USD 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) USD 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 (f) Advisory Opinion of 25 April 2021 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 to honorable. As described below, the Board recommended granting the requested relief. 2. The Board, consisting of and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14 June 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 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 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 reference (f), the 25 April 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’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 Marine Corps on 17 October 1994. On 27 July 1995, he received nonjudicial punishment for the use of marijuana. On 18 September 1995, he received a drug screening, which found that he did not exhibit a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse. On 8 September 1995, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative discharge processing, and his rights in connection therewith, and he waived all of his rights except the right to obtain copies of documents used to support his discharge. On 27 November 1995, the separation authority directed that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 13 December 1995, the Petitioner was so discharged. c. In 2000, the Petitioner filed an application with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), contending that his discharge characterization was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident and did not take into account his other extraordinary performance. On 29 September 2000, the NDRB found that there was no impropriety or inequity in the Petitioner’s discharge. In 2014, the Petitioner filed a petition with this Board, contending that his service record justified an upgrade to his characterization of service. On 11 May 2015, this Board denied his petition. d. In his current petition, the Petitioner contends that, while he was in training, he fell from a height of three stories, which left him hospitalized. When the Petitioner returned to his unit, and he was unable to keep up with the other Marines due to his injuries, the other Marines attacked him and told him to leave or that he would leave in a box. According to the Petitioner, the assault from his fellow Marines left him with stitches near his eye. The Petitioner included the statement of an eyewitness to the Petitioner’s experiences. He states that this trauma led to his drinking and that he does not remember using marijuana, but if he did, he did so while he was intoxicated. e. In connection with his assertion of a mental health condition, the Board requested, and received, the reference (f) AO, which is set forth verbatim on the brief sheet in this matter. The AO was considered favorable to Petitioner, and concluded, “[g]iven the post-discharge evidence, eyewitness statement, and credible and compelling statement from Petitioner, in my clinical opinion, the objective evidence supports Petitioner’s contention of PTSD incurred during his military service as mitigation for his in-service misconduct.” Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (f), the Board determined that, with respect to the relief that Petitioner requested, there exists an error or injustice warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO and applying liberal consideration, that Petitioner’s misconduct during his service should be mitigated by his PTSD and that his characterization of service should be upgraded from other than honorable to honorable. Accordingly, based on a careful review of all of the facts presented, the Board concludes that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. 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 honorable, his narrative reason and authority for separation was Secretarial Authority, and his SPD code was JFF; and That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate; 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. 6/24/2021 Executive Director