DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6842-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USN, 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 13 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 as well as changing his narrative reason for separation and separation code. 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 13 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 Navy on 23 February 1989 and he served an honorable enlistment ending on 19 February 1992. He immediately reenlisted effective 20 February 1992. On 25 November 1992, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying the order of a petty officer to surrender his identification card, for pushing a shore patrolman in the chest, and for drunk and disorderly conduct. On 24 September 1993, the Petitioner was issued a military protective order directing him to stay away from his wife, who was a Japanese national. On 16 November 1993, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying the written protective order and for being incapacitated for duty. On 23 November 93, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing due to the commission of a serious offense and for alcohol rehabilitation failure and his rights in connection therewith. He elected to be represented by counsel and to have an administrative discharge board. On 16 December 1993, the administrative board was held, and it found that the Petitioner did commit a serious offense, was an alcohol rehabilitation failure, that he should be discharged, and that his characterization of service should be general (under honorable conditions). On 30 December 1993, his commanding officer transmitted his recommendation that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 24 January 1994, the separation authority directed that the Petitione be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, and on 16 February 1994, the Petitioner was so discharged. c. The Petitioner contends that he experienced an explosion and fire while at sea in the Navy in 1991, which caused him PTSD, which should mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. He explains that he struggled with alcohol during his time in the service, and that he is now sober. Petitioner has also provided documentation that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs found him to have a 50% service-connected disability due to PTSD. The Petitioner also describes how, post-service, he participated in the clean up of the World Trade Center towers, first as a volunteer, and then as an employee of a contractor. He has appended to his petition information describing that he has serious medical diagnoses attributable to his clean up efforts, including having 90 percent of his esophagus removed and 10 percent of his stomach as a result of cancer, which has been identified as a World Trade Center-related illness. d. 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, “it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD.” CONCLUSION 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 general (under honorable conditions) 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