DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8136-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER MEMBER , 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) 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 TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) 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 (e) 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 his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect an RE-1 reentry code and his first name as “.” 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 July 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 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 the advisory opinion (AO) of a qualified mental health provider. 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 on 6 February 2001. The name on his enlistment contract and used throughout his official military personnel file is “ .” d. On 21 May 2003, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for damaging government property, misbehavior of a sentinel/lookout, and reckless endangerment. On 23 January 2004, he received a second NJP for an unauthorized absence (UA). On 27 October 2004, Petitioner received a third NJP for an UA from 18 August 2004 to 12 September 2004. e. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct. Although the discharge authority’s authorizing letter is not available in the record, review of the DD Form 214 reflects the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 5 November 2004 and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. f. Petitioner contends that at the time of discharge, he “thinks he was dealing with PTSD which was not a thing when [he] was in service.” He further contends he was “young and stupid dealing with things by [himself]” and he regrets not getting help. Petitioner misses the military and desires to join the Army now that he is “older and wiser.” g. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO on 26 May 2021. The AO states the in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated a mental health condition. The AO further states that throughout his military service, disciplinary actions, counselings, and administrative separation processing, there were no concerns cited which would have warranted referral to mental health resources. While Petitioner asserted he suffered from mental health issues, he did not provide any evidence of symptoms, traumatic events, or a post-service clinical diagnosis to support his claim. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded the 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 attributed to a mental health condition. The AO was provided to Petitioner on 1 June 2021 and he was given 30 days to provide a response. When he did not respond within the 30 days, his case was submitted to the Board for review. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e). The Board, applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, determined there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service or that his misconduct should be mitigated by his PTSD. The Board, noting he did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes, concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting a change to Petitioner’s reentry code. The Board noted Petitioner’s first name throughout his military record is “ ” and the name “” is only used on his DD Form 214. The Board determined the use of “ ” on his DD Form 214 was administrative error. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his first name as “” vice “.” 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. 8/9/2021