DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6916-20 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USN, 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 23 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 record by corrected by upgrading his discharge to general (under honorable conditions), changing the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority, and changing the separation and reentry codes “as necessary.” As described below, the Board recommended granting the Petitioner his requested relief with the exception of his reentry code, which the Board concluded should stay the same. 2. The Board, consisting of Ms. , Ms. , and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 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 considered reference (f), the 23 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 27 October 1992. On 26 July 1994, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from his appointed place of duty on two occasions. On 30 September 1994, he received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 24 October 1994, he again received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. Finally, on 25 February 1995, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disrespect to a petty officer. Although the entirety of his administrative discharge materials are not available in his official military personnel file, by message dated 22 March 1995, the discharge authority directed that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 14 April 1995, he was so discharged. c. The Petitioner contends that he served honorably and without incident until he was involved in a series of catastrophic events. He asserts that he witnessed a motorcycle accident and attempted to save the woman’s life, but she still maintained severe burns, that he witnessed a helicopter accident where his friend was killed, and that he he witnessed brutal beatings while stationed in a combat zone in Somalia. Finally, he states that he suffered permanent eye damage after another service member played a practical joke on him. According to the Petitioner, after these incidents, his mental health started to unravel and he was unable to sleep and became depressed, and his misconduct began thereafter. He states that he is now diagnosed with PTSD and attached to his petition a service-connected disability rating from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. d. In connection with his assertions of PTSD, the Board requested, and received, an advisory opinion (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 (e), the Board determineed that, with respect to the specific 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. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) as well as associated relief in the form of changing his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority and separation code. The Board did not find that a change the Petitioner’s reentry code was warranted. 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 general (under honorable conditions), that the narrative reason and authority for his separation was Secretarial Authority, and separation code was JFF. His reentry code shall remain as RE-4; 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