From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 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) PDUSD 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) SECDEF 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 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 from under other than honorable conditions to honorable, and his narrative reason for discharge “Secretarial Authority.” 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 February 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 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 an 8 February 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a 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. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 23 Aug 1990, after having served honorably from 26 August 1986 until 22 August 1990. On 16 November 1990, the Petitioner sought medical treatment for nervousness while he was at sea. He described to a medical provider that he suffered anxiety and depression and had a history of alcohol abuse in his family. He was found fit for duty and encouraged to engage in counseling. On 12 February 1991, he had another medical encounter, during which he was diagnosed with bulimia, a personality disorder, and an adjustment disorder. On 23 April 1991, the Petitioner reported suicidal ideation and was treated at two different naval hospitals. During his treatment he described his use of cocaine and marijuana prior to his entry in the Navy. He also described using marijuana while he was in the Navy. On 22 May 1991, Navy medical professionals determined that he was unfit for service and recommended that he be discharged. c. On 1 July 1991, the Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for administrative separation due to defective and fraudulent enlistment due to drug abuse as well as personality disorder, and his rights attendant to same. The Petitioner waived his right to an administrative discharge board. On 9 July 1991, his commanding officer recommended that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. On 13 August 1991, the Petitioner was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. d. The Petitioner previously petitioned this Board, bringing forth post-service clemency material, which included that he worked as a firefighter and had obtained a bachelor’s degree. This Board denied his petition on 10 January 2019, citing Petitioner’s misconduct as well as the Navy’s zero tolerance drug policy. e. In his current petition, the Petitioner contends, essentially, that his chain of command and medical personnel made an error in continuing to find Petitioner fit for duty and sending him back to his ship, when it was clear that he should have been transferred off of ship to deal with his psychological issues, which worsened over time. To assist with the review of medical assertions, the Board requested an AO, which determined, verbatim, as follows: Petitioner’s in-service record included his enlistment physical, which was devoid of any mental health concerns; however, he did indicate a one-time use of marijuana prior to enlistment. His records further revealed he first sought mental health treatment for “stress,” while in-service, in November of 1990 and was hospitalized for suicidal ideation in April of 1991. Petitioner was treated with individual/group therapy, as well as medications. His approximately two week inpatient hospitalized included treatment, observation, and psychological testing. Although the interviewer was concerned Petitioner was embellishing his symptoms, testing did indicate Petitioner’s clinical profile was indicative of an individual who was “tense, anxious, restless, and agitated…hypersensitive…likely to experience periods of impulsivity…” Throughout his hospitalization Petitioner “participated eagerly, but superficially” in treatment and “gained little insight into his behavior.” His discharge diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features; Alcohol Abuse; Cannabis Abuse; Bulimia Nervosa; and Personality Disorder with narcissistic and histrionic features. It was noted he was responsible for his actions, his personality disorder rendered him unsuitable for continued naval service, and administrative separation should be considered. It is common for persons who present for mental health treatment to have difficulty adapting to new coping skills and revert back to maladaptive coping skills (i.e., marijuana and alcohol use). The adjustment and personality disorder may mitigate his in-service drug use; however, it does not mitigate his non-disclosure of previous mental health treatment (i.e., hospitalization for eating disorder during adolescence, treatment for mental health symptoms between 13 and 17 years of age) or prior cocaine use. Based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient direct evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and his in-service misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health condition. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (e), and in light of the AO, the Board determined that there exists an error or injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that Petitioner’s misconduct during his service should be mitigated to some extent by his mental health condition. The Board did not believe that his characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable, in light of the misconduct for which he was processed for discharge. However, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) as well as changing his reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority as set forth in more detail below. In addition, considering that the Petitioner had a prior enlistment, there appearing to be no prior DD Form 214 reflecting his period of honorable service, the Board also directs that a statement of his honorable service be set forth in Block 18 of his DD Form 214, as described in more detail below. 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. Block 18 of his DD Form 214 shall note that the Petitioner had “Continuous Honorable Active Service from 26 August 1986 until 22 August 1990.” 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.