From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USMC, XXX-XX- 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. 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 11 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. On 22 August 1967, the Petitioner commenced an enlistment in the Marine Corps. From 27 February 1968 to 15 March 1969, the Petitioner participated in five named combat operations in the Republic of Vietnam. During his service in Vietnam, the Petitioner was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with device, and the Vietnam Service Medal. c. While in Vietnam, on 26 November 1968, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for sleeping on post. After returning the to the United States, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for a period of unauthorized absence of approximately two weeks. He received nonjudicial punishment again on 25 September 1969, for disobeying an order to extinguish his cigarette. From 9 October 1969 to 13 October 1969, the Petitioner was hospitalized due to a drug overdose. Upon his release from the hospital, he commenced a period of unauthorized absence from 13 October 1969 to 31 October 1969. He was then convicted by a special court-martial for this period of unauthorized absence, as well as for destruction of government property by making a hole in a wall and breaking a window. As part of his punishment by the court-martial, he received a bad conduct discharge. He was discharged on 27 March 1970, and his characterization of service was noted as “under other than honorable conditions” as a result of his bad conduct discharge. At the time, bad conduct discharges were reflected on DD Forms 214 as under other than honorable conditions. d. Petitioner contends that his discharge should be mitigated by his post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his combat experience in Vietnam. He also states that when he came back from Vietnam he felt like he was rejected from the military and from civilians as well. He had issues dealing with both of these along with reliving memories from Vietnam and other issues from his time. In order to deal with his issues, he would drink heavily, which led to the events that resulted in his court-martial. He notes that he was seen by a psychiatrist multiple times in October 1969, and those notes reflects that Petitioner tried to overdose with medications. e. The Board requested, and received, an advisory opinion (AO), which has been noted in the Board’s records. The AO was considered favorable to Petitioner, and stated: Petitioner’s records revealed the majority of his misconduct occurred after his return from sustained combat operations, for which he was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon. He returned from his last deployment on 15 March 1969 and his misconduct started in May of 1969. Petitioner’s in-service record revealed an inpatient hospitalization in October of 1969 after a suicide attempt via overdose and noted depressive features. The psychiatrist further noted seeing the Petitioner in clinic on three occasions, prior to the overdose, after being referred for anxiety and agitation. During each of the visits, he described the Petitioner as “anxious and showed signs of depressive affect.” There is no indication of treatment or follow up regarding the three visits. Petitioner provided documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD by his local VA linked to his military service. It is reasonable to attribute his misconduct to symptoms associated with PTSD (i.e., avoidance). Based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition/PTSD during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health condition/PTSD. 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 relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that Petitioner’s misconduct during his service should be mitigated by his PTSD. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to honorable as well as associated relief in the form of changing his reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority and separation code to JFF1 as set forth 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 Honorable, that the narrative reason and authority for his separation was Secretarial Authority, and separation code was JFF1. 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. Executive Director 02/22/2021