DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1535-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , 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) USD 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) USD 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 (f) Advisory Opinion of 7 July 2021 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 general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and to return his paygrade to E-3. As described below, the Board recommended different relief in the form of changing the Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, authority for separation, and separation code to Secretarial Authority. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 August 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 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 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 reference (f) 7 July 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by 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. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty on 31 January 1963. On 11 July 1963, he received nonjudicial punishment for wrongfully using a fire extinguisher. On 15 January 1965, he received nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey a lawful order. On 13 April 1965, he received nonjudicial punishment for breaking quarantine as well as for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. On 1 May 1965, he received nonjudicial punishment for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. On 14 July 1965, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for unauthorized absence. On 12 October 1965, he received nonjudicial punishment for disrespect to superior officer, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, assault on a petty officer, communicating a threat, contempt toward a petty officer), and unauthorized absence. Thereafter, on 25 October 1965, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing due to emotionally unstable personality disorder and an established pattern of military offenses. The Petitioner stated that he did not desire to submit any statement on his behalf. On 26 October 1965, his commanding officer recommended that he be discharged. On 17 November 1965, the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, recommended that the Petitioner be evaluated by a medical board to determine if he suffered from a disability based on a neurotic disorder. On 1 December 1965, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment again for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. On 6 December 1965, the Petitioner was directed to receive a psychiatric exam. On 28 December 1965, after evaluating the applicable medical evidence, a Navy medical board found that the Petitioner was unsuitable for naval service and that he be discharged. The medical board did not report a finding that the Petitioner had a disability. On 14 January 1966, he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. c. The Petitioner contends that he suffered from PTSD during his service, and he feels that his discharge was unjust due to the fact that he had a service-connected disability rated at 100 percent due to his PTSD. d. In connection with his assertions of a mental health condition, the Board requested, and received, the reference (f) AO. According to the AO: Petitioner did not provide details supporting an in-service experience of psychological symptoms indicating an unfitting mental health condition (e.g., symptoms experienced, interference with daily function, trauma, or relationship to misconduct). Though he contended that post-service he was diagnosed with PTSD, there was no evidence presented to link his postservice diagnosis to his military service or misconduct. His in-service records indicated multiple psychiatric evaluations, including a comprehensive psychiatric inpatient evaluation, which resulted in Personality Disorder diagnoses, but no evidence of other unfitting psychiatric conditions. Additional information, such as post-service treatment records describing the Petitioner’s mental health diagnosis and its specific link to his misconduct, are required to render an alternate opinion. Should the Petitioner choose to submit additional records, they will be reviewed in context of his claims. The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence presented failed to establish Petitioner suffered from an unfitting mental health condition at the time of his military service, or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by an unfitting mental health condition.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (f), the Board determined that there was not a basis for the relief that Petitioner requested. However, the Board determined that, as a matter of clemency, the Petitioner is entitled to different relief, in the form of changing his narrative reason of separation, separation authority, and separation code, to be reflected as “Secretarial Authority.” 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 general (under honorable conditions); Secretarial Authority narrative reason for separation and authority, JFF SPD. 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. 9/17/2021