DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7165-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER FA , USN, Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) 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 (c)USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with 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 to reflect an upgraded characterization of service to “honorable.” 2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Mr. , and Ms. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 June 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta 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 the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to Petitioner. 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 29 July 1997. On 18 May 2000, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) from wrongful use of a controlled substance. On 24 May 2000, Petitioner was notified that he was being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy due to Drug Abuse. Petitioner was advised of, and waived his procedural rights, including his right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) then forwarded his administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending that Petitioner be administratively discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The SA approved the CO’s recommendation and directed Petitioner’s OTH discharge by reason of Misconduct due to Drug Abuse. On 1 July 2000, Petitioner was discharged. d. Petitioner contends he developed a mental health condition, that incurred during his military service, which might have mitigated the misconduct that led to his OTH characterization of service. He further asserts that he was suffering from depression at the time, he made a mistake, and tested positive for marijuana. Additionally, Petitioner provided the following assertions: 1) Since his discharge, over the last 20 years he has gone to school to be a Journeyman Electrician and received his Certificate, and has remained employed full-time. He has received several certificates within his field. 2) The circumstances surrounding his release from active duty has taught him a valuable lesson. Since his release, he has not had any problems with drugs or alcohol and he has never been arrested and has lived an upstanding life. 3) He was young and made some immature decisions at a young age. Looking back now, he does not feel like he was misled by the Navy. The tasks he was assigned were things that all young Sailors had to do, and his depression and anxiety got the best of him. e. Petitioner’s application and records were reviewed by a qualified mental health professional who provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration. The AO noted Petitioner’s in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. Throughout Petitioner’s administrative processing, there were no concerns noted which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded by opining the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or that his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (c). The Board, applying liberal consideration and the factors outlined in reference (c), the Wilkie Memo, concluded that although it found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice, Petitioner’s request warranted clemency in the form of an upgrade to his characterization of service to “general (under honorable conditions).” 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 “general, under honorable conditions.” That a copy of this report of proceedings 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 7/13/2021 Executive Director