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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo)   
        (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) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 (Kurta Memo) 
        (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 w/attachments 
        (2) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 18 Feb 21 
   
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), stating that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his military service.  He is requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).  Further, he also impliedly request that the narrative reason for his discharge, separation authority, and separation code be changed.  Enclosures (1) and (2) applies. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of  reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 April 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, to include 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 opinions (AOs) 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.  Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 23 January 1969. 
   
     c.  On 12 July 1970, Petitioner arrived for duty in .  He participated in counter insurgency operations and departed  on 11 April 1971. 
  
     d.  On 13 August 1971, Petitioner admitted to the use of drugs, and was diagnosed as a “heroin addict in the recent past, now in remission.”  Petitioner was found psychiatrically fit for duty, mentally competent, and responsible for his actions.  It was opined that he should be given the opportunity to complete his time in the service.  Further, it was recommended that his security clearance be taken away because many former addicts have returned to narcotic use, and a drug exemption was granted. 
 
     e.  On  26 August 1971, Petitioner’s security clearance was terminated for cause. 
 
     f.  On 27 August 1971, Petitioner visited the American National Red Cross office at   for counseling in accordance with the current Drug Exemption Program.  At that time, it was opined that he did not appear to have a drug problem; his main concern was exemption for past use.  
 
     g.  On 23 September 1971, Petitioner was notified of administrative discharge action for unfitness due to drug abuse. Petitioner did not have the right to legal counsel or to appear before an admin discharge board. Petitioner only had the right to submit a statement (Elected not to make a statement), and that his discharge would be no less than general (under honorable conditions). 
 
     h.  On 24 September 1971, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) forwarded the case to the separation authority recommending that he receive an honorable discharge due to unfitness following his self-admission of the use of narcotics. 
 
     i.  On 16 August 1971, a Drug Exemption Report was forwarded to the commanding general noting the type of drugs Petitioner used were heroin, LSD, and marijuana.  
 
     j.  On 18 October 1971, the commanding general disapproved Petitioner’s recommendation for an administrative discharge by reason of unfitness, and directed retention in the Marine Corps. 
 
     k.  On  17 April 1972, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for seven days of unauthorized absence (UA). 
 
     l.  On 8 June 1972, Petitioner began a period of UA that lasted 213 days, ending on 29 December 1972. 
 
     m.  On 22 January 1973, Petitioner submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service in order to avoid trial by court-martial for 213 days of unauthorized absence.  Prior to submitting this request for discharge, Petitioner conferred with a qualified military lawyer, was advised of his rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Subsequently, his request for discharge was granted and on 12 February 1973, he received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court.  As a result of this action, he was spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.  
 
      n.  With his application, Petitioner stated he made a mistake while in  and used drugs, and that when he returned, he was honest about his substance abuse, and was offered a general discharge by his CO because his security clearance had been taken away.  Further, he has been diagnosed with PTSD due to his service in , and that if his general discharge had been approved, he would not have gone AWOL. 
  
     o.  Enclosure (2), states the preponderance of objective evidence supports Petitioner’s contention he suffered from undiagnosed PTSD as a result of his military service and this condition should be considered as mitigating for his in-service misconduct. 
  
BOARD CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief.  The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e) intended to be covered by this policy.    
  
In this regard, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, including his  service, and in light of enclosures (2) and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “General (under honorable conditions),” and that the narrative reason for separation read “Secretarial Authority.” The Board noted that this mitigates Petitioner’s drug use and request for help.     
  
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. 
 
BOARD RECOMMENDATION  
 
That Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected to show that on 12 February 1973, he received an “General (under honorable conditions)” characterization of service. 
 
That Petitioner’s naval be further corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to read “Secretarial Authority,” 
 
That the separation authority read “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214.”   
 
That the separation code read “JFF1.”   
 
That the Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).   
 
No further action be granted. 
 
A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 
 
4.  It is certified that 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.