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, “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 (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 characterization of service from other than honorable to honorable, and changing the narrative reason for his discharge from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Secretarial Authority. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 February 2021 and, 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, to include the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (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 an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was completed on 11 February 2021. 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 and began a period of active duty on 6 July 1987. He was assigned to , in which he served in the operations specialist (OS) rating. Prior to joining , the Petitioner’s service had been free of any negative incidents. The Petitioner contends that onboard , he worked as a surface radar controller in the Combat Information Center (CIC). In July 1988, was operating in the during a time of increased tension and hostilities. On 3 July 1988, during a period was engaging with gunboats, it had misidentified a civilian Airbus A300 as an attacking fighter jet, and shot the down, killing all of its 290 passengers. The Petitioner was present in the CIC during this encounter. c. The Petitioner contends that, in the wake of this tragedy, he experienced tremendous feelings of guilt and despair. The Petitioner contends that, due to night terrors and other manifestations of mental health deteroriation, he began to drink to help himself fall asleep, then he would use methamphetamines to stay awake during the work day. d. On 12 April 1989, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for using methamphetamines. He was issued a page 13 counseling/warning concerning illegal use of controlled substances. e. On 5 May 1989, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment again for the use of methamphetamines. That same day he was provided notification of the initiation of administrative separation processing and he waived his right to an administrative discharge board. On 2 June 1989, the Petitioner commenced a period of unauthorized absence, which ended on 1 August 1989, when he was apprehended by civilian authorities. f. On 25 August 1989, the Petitioner was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. His final performance average was 3.4. g. The Board sought an advisory opinion (AO), from a qualified mental health professional, which found, verbatim, as follows: Petitioner’s in-service record revealed he was assigned to the and was exposed to a significant traumatic event, as well as combat, for which he was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon. The specific tragic event was the downing of a civilian aircraft, Flight 655, on 3 July 1988. His records also confirmed his overall rating on performance and conduct were 3.6 and 3.8, prior to his first nonjudicial punishment and his misconduct occurred after 3 July 1988. Petitioner provided documentation of a well-documented PTSD diagnosis, as well as VA documentation his discharge is considered honorable for VA purposes. The VA decision specifically noted, “aftermath of the Flight 655 tragedy, which caused negative emotional and psychological consequences for the veteran…negative aspects of Veteran’s service, which clearly took place after the Flight 655 tragedy…led to Veteran’s use of drugs as selfmedicating, coping, rather than recreationally.” Petitioner also provided an investigative report regarding the incident of Flight 655 and it recommended “…providing any necessary psychological/psychiatric assistance to crew members of the in anticipation of possible post-traumatic stress syndrome…” Unfortunately, there is no indication in Petitioner’s military records he was provided any mental health resources. Based on the available evidence provided in the application (i.e., copy of Petitioner’s military record, VA documentation, personal statement, Investigation Report of the 3 July 1988 incident), 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, in view of references (b) through (e), and in agreement with the AO, the Board determineed that Petitioner warrants relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that Petitioner’s misconduct during his service should be mitigated by his PTSD that resulted from his experience aboard the Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to honorable as well as associated relief in the form of changing his narrative reason for discharge. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that on 25 August 1989, he was discharged with an honorable character of service, MILPERSMAN 3630900 separation authority, JFF separation code, Secretary Plenary Authority narrative reason for separation, and RE-4 reenlistment code. That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. 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.