Docket No: 8283-20 Ref: Signature Date 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 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 that his naval record be corrected to reflect an upgraded characterization of service from other than honorable (OTH). 2. The Board consisting of , and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 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), 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) furnished by 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 and began a period of active duty on 22 July 1983. Petitioner subsequently completed this enlistment with an Honorable characterization of service on 27 May 1987, and reenlisted on 28 May 1987. During the period from 14 July 1987 to 28 January 1988, Petitioner received three instances of non-judicial punishments (NJP). His offenses were unauthorized absence on four occasions, missing ship’s movement and wrongful use of a controlled substance. d. Subsequently, on 29 January 1988, Petitioner was notified that he was being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy due to Commission of a Serious Offense and 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 14 March 1988, Petitioner was discharged. e. Petitioner states that he was diagnosed in 2017 with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and through treatment, linked it to his military service. Specifically, Petitioner noted being onboard the USS when a helicopter crashed and no survivors were found. Petitioner further stated that afterwards, he experienced nightmares and depression, which led to him using alcohol as a method to forget the thoughts going through his mind. f. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and available records and provided an AO dated 2 May 2021. As reflected in the AO, the mental health professional concluded that 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) through (e). The Board carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered Petitioner’s statement. Unfortunately, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in Petitioner’s discharge and determined his service was appropriately characterized as other than honorable. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading Petitioner’s characterization of service. Based upon review of Petitioner’s application and supporting documentation, the Board determined that Petitioner’s misconduct as evidenced by three NJPs, which also involved wrongful use of a controlled substance, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined Petitioner’s request does not merit relief. Additionally, the Board noted Petitioner has an honorable period of service from “22 July 1983 to 27 May 1987” that is not reflected on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). The DD Form 214 incorrectly puts both periods of enlistment together as one enlistment. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to reflect two separate enlistments. Petitioner’s first enlistment from “22 July 1983 to 27 May 1987” with an honorable characterization of service. Petitioner’s second enlistment from “28 May 1987 to 14 March 1988” with an OTH characterization of service. Petitioner shall be issued a DD Form 215 with correction to the Remarks Section (Block 18), listing his honorable period of prior service. No further action be granted. 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 Regulation, 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. 7/2/2021 Executive Director