DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10040-16 SEP 06 2017 From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) SECDEF Memo of3 Sep 14 "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD" (c) PDUSD Memo of24 Feb 16 "Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBl" Encl: (1) DD Fonn 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) BUMED ltr [REDACTED] 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, the son ofa deceased former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his father's discharge characterization of service be upgraded from undesirable to honorable in light of current guidelines as reflected in references (b) and (c). 2. Petitioner previously filed with this Board on 4 January 2016 requesting an upgrade to his father's discharge. A three-member panel ofthe Board, sitting in executive session, considered the application on the merits on 16 June 2016. Prior to the finalization of the Board's decision, the Executive Director determined that, to ensure the case received full consideration in light of all applicable statutes, regulations, and current policy directives, the matter should be reconsidered by the Board with the benefit of a subject matter expert advisory opinion (AO). The case was administratively closed while awaiting the AO. Upon receipt ofenclosure (3), an AO from the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), the case was reopened. 3. The Board, consisting of [NAMES REDACTED], reviewed Petitioner's allegations oferror and injustice on 26 May 2017, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and the advisory opinion (AO) provided by BUMED. Enclosures ( l) through (3) apply. 4. 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 interest ofjustice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner's father enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 24 September 1940. On 1 October 1942, Petitioner's father received Deck Court for forcibly resisting arrest, AWOL for 3 hours and was awarded reduction in rank. During the timeframe from 4 November 1942 to 8 February 1943, Petitioner's father served in combat in Guadalcanal. d. On 21 April 1945, Petitioner's father was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for public intoxication. On 10 September 1945, Petitioner's father was convicted at SCM for being intoxicated and possessing another individual's liberty card. On 6 December 1945, Petitioner's father received a civil conviction for driving another individual's automobile without permission. On 19 December 1945 Petitioner's father was convicted by SCM for a 23-day unauthorized absence. e. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. After being afforded all of his procedural rights, the commanding officer recommended Petitioner's father receive an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. The separation authority approved this recommendation and, on 13 March 1946, Petitioner's father received an undesirable discharge. f. Based on current Board policy and guidance, the Board requested an AO from BUMED, the office having cognjzance over the subject matter. The AO has commented to the effect that the specific traumas Petitioner's father may have experienced at Guadalcanal are unknown, but it is very likely that they were significant based upon historical recounting of the battles. "Alcohol abuse certainly contributed to the father's charges of misconduct. The misconduct primarily occurred after his deployment experiences overseas, suggesting that he used alcohol as a way to cope with the emotional repercussions of the trauma." It is BUMED's considered medical opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support Petitioner's contention that his father had service connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which contributed to his alcohol abuse and misconduct. See enclosure (3). CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence of record, and especially in light ofreferences (b) and ( c) and enclosure (3 ), the Board concluded Petitioner's request warrants partial relief. The Board determined an upgrade to Petitioner's father's characterization of service from undesirable to general under honorable conditions, is warranted based on the impact PTSD likely had on his father's misconduct. The Board noted his father's misconduct was directly linked to his alcohol abuse and occurred after completion ofhis combat tour in Guadalcanal. The Board concurred with BUMED's opinion that Petitioner's father's alcohol abuse was self­medication to cope with the emotional pain. Although the Board concluded that the PTSD as a mitigating factor for the post combat misconduct, the Board believed that the pre-combat misconduct did not support an upgrade to an honorable discharge. The Board concluded that the Petitioner's father's discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. RECOMMENDATION: In view ofthe foregoing, the Board finds the existence ofan injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. Petitioner's father's naval record be corrected to show he received a general, under honorable conditions, characterization ofservice on 13 March 1946. Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, a correction to the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Fonn 214). A copy ofthis Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's father's naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that the application was received by the Board on 13 January 2016. 5. lt is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 6. 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 ofthe Navy. Executive director