Docket No: 2833-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USNR, 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 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 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. 2. The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. , and Mr. , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 August 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 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 considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to the Petitioner. 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 26 November 1985. On 27 March 1986 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from his appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order by being out of uniform in violation of Articles 86 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 3 April 1986 Petitioner received a second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully wearing physical training attire and consuming alcohol while in a restricted status. Petitioner received a third NJP on 20 June 1988 for use of a controlled substance, marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. Petitioner was notified of administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. He waived his procedural right to consult with counsel; nor did he request an administrative discharge board. Petitioner was discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service on 21 July 1988. d. Petitioner contends he was on weekend leave and attended a concert “whereby [he] ingested marijuana.” He further contends his years as a young adult were characterized by impulsivity, recklessness, and poor choices that ultimately led to his separation from the service. He further states in 1990 his substance abuse issues escalated to the point that he found himself powerless. Consequently, he enrolled in a 90 day recovery program. He states he successfully completed the residential recovery program and is free from addictive behaviors. Petitioner asserts he now serves as a contractor for the New Jersey National Guard as the alcohol and drug control officer. e. In support of his application, Petitioner provided documentation to verify his post-service accomplishments to include a letter stating he completed a 90 day addiction recovery program on 5 August 1990, college transcripts indicating he was conferred a Bachelor of Science in Bible degree and a Master of Divinity in Christian Counseling certification, training certificates in suicide prevention and mental health first aid, and a character reference from a reverend on his behalf. Additionally, Petitioner states he became ordained to the gospel ministry and serves as a preacher, teacher, and counselor. Furthermore, as part of his full time vocation with the National Guard, Petitioner states he trains Soldiers in suicide prevention skills and briefs the Adjutant General, high level staff, and major subordinate commanders on substance abuse trends, and mitigation strategies for the state. f. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s available records and provided an AO dated 14 June 2021. The AO noted that Petitioner provided handwritten medical records from a behavioral health institution regarding post-service treatment. The notes indicated endorsement of anxiety, depression, one hospitalization for suicidal ideation in 2014, as well as alcohol addiction and a Bipolar II Disorder. However, the documentation does not indicate how Petitioner met the criteria for Bipolar II Disorder or onset of symptoms. Consequently, the AO concluded that the preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service or his in-service misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition. CONCLUSION: The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e). Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief and that as a grant of clemency, his characterization of service should be corrected to reflect general (under honorable conditions). The Board applied liberal consideration in accordance with the references; however concurred with the AO and found insufficient evidence to determine that Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition during his military service. Notwithstanding the AO and in light of reference (e), the Board determined that Petitioner’s post-service record of rehabilitation and service warrants relief in the interests of justice. The Board found no error or injustice in Petitioner’s discharge under OTH conditions from the Navy; this discharge was warranted by Petitioner’s record of misconduct at the time. Despite finding no error or injustice in Petitioner’s discharge at the time, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice today in accordance with reference (e). In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, Petitioner’s commendable post-service record of service to Soldiers in the National Guard; Petitioner’s sincere remorse and humble acceptance of responsibility for the conduct that resulted in his discharge from the Navy; that Petitioner sought out and successfully completed rehabilitation treatment to overcome his drug and alcohol addictions; Petitioner’s relative youth and immaturity at the time of his misconduct; and the passage of time since Petitioner’s discharge. Although it did not find Petitioner’s post-service record to excuse the conduct for which Petitioner was discharged, the Board did find that these mitigating circumstances, particularly Petitioner’s record of service to other service members, were worthy of relief in the interests of justice. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “General (Under Honorable Conditions),” separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” separation code as “JFF,” and narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner’s reentry code shall remain the same. That no other changes be made and 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. 9/8/2021 Executive Director