From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USN, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF Memo of 3 Sep 14 “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (Hagel Memo) (c) PDUSD Memo of 24 Feb 16 “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” (d) USD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “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” (Kurta Memo) (e) USECDEF 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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) Case Summary (3) DD Form 214 of 16 Oct 1981 (4) NJP History, naval message of 15 Sep 1981 (5) BCNR Docket No. 5380-08 of 8 Apr 2009 (6) Advisory Opinion from Mental Health Professional of 8 Feb 2021 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 to a honorable characterization of service. 2. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered Petitioner’s application on 5 April 2021. The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request. Petitioner allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of the Board. 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 references (b through e). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, found as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 18 December 1978. See enclosure (3) c. During the period from 14 August 1980 to 11 September 1981, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) five times. The offenses included, three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 29 days, two specifications of disrespect, three specifications of disobedience, failure to cooperate, two specifications of dereliction of duty, and escape from custody. See enclosure (4) d. On 14 September 1981, Petitioner was notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. After being afforded his procedural rights, he elected to waive his right to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB). Petitioner’s case was then forwarded to the separation authority. Petitioner’s separation was approved, and on 16 October 1981, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. See enclosures (3-4) e. On 7 April 2009, the Board for Correction of Naval Records reviewed Petitioner’s OTH discharge and recommended to deny relief based on the seriousness of Petitioner’s repetitive misconduct. See enclosure (5) f. A qualified mental health professional reviewed Petitioner’s request for correction to his record and provided the Board with an Advisory Opinion (AO) regarding his assertion that he was suffering from a mental health condition during his service. The AO noted that Petitioner’s maladaptive behaviors can be seen in interactions such as conflicts with peers and superiors (seen as disobedience, failure to cooperate, dereliction, and disrespect) and avoidance behaviors (e.g., UA). The AO concluded by opining that although Petitioner’s diagnosis was not caused by his military service, his mental health condition of Asperger’s Syndrome may be considered as a mitigating factor for Petitioner’s in-service misconduct. See enclosure (6) CONCLUSION The Board, in its review of Petitioner’s entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors and determined that Petitioner’s request did not warrant relief. The Board carefully considered all factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in Petitioner’s case in accordance with reference (e). These included, but were not limited to Petitioner’s statement that his undiagnosed Autism prevented him from fulfilling his duties and perhaps, should have kept him out of the Navy. Petitioner asserts that he sought a discharge through proper channels but was denied. Petitioner further assert that his division experienced racism during his time onboard the and that all E-6 and above, including his division officer were Filipino, and they discriminated against all non-Filipinos. Additionally, he asserts that he was seen by many counselors and therapists over the years, beginning when he was a teen; and when he moved back to his native region, he worked with a psychiatrist who prescribed Zoloft for his depression and anxiety, and diagnosed him with Autism. However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner’s misconduct, as evidenced by his five NJPs, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request does not merit relief. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends no relief. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CONCLUSION Notwithstanding the Board’s conclusion, I believe to the contrary, Petitioner’s misconduct during his short time in the Navy was impacted by his mental health condition. I agree with the Mental Health Professional’s AO that his diagnosis was not caused by his military service and that his mental health condition of Asperger’s Syndrome lessons the gravity of his in-service misconduct. Based upon this review, I concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize Petitioner’s service as anything but honorable. Accordingly, I recommend that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty to show he was discharged with a honorable characterization of service. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. No further action be taken. 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 4/27/2021 Executive Director Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Reviewed and Approved Executive Director’s Recommendation (Grant Relief) 5/16/2021 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)