DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. §1552 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 

(2) Subject's Personal Statement II Jun 16 
(3) Enlisted Performance Record 
(4) 
(5) CO, Turret Explosion Wikipedia article 
(6) DD 214 of2 Sep 89 
(7) Psychiatric Report by , M.D. of 14 Oct 12 
(8) BUMED ltr [REDACTIONS] 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed 
enclosure (1) and (2) with this Board on 14 December 2016. Petitioner had previously petitioned 
the Board and was advised in our letter of30 January 2013, that his application had been denied. 
Petitioner's case was reconsidered in accordance with Board of Correction ofNaval Records 
procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations of error and injustice on 19 June 2017 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 
that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice 
and that no corrective action should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board 
consisted ofthe Petitioner's application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 
relevant portions of the Petitioner's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 
See enclosures (1) -(8). 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord 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 ofthe Navy. 

b. Petitioner requests that his other than honorable discharge characterization be changed to a 
general under honorable conditions discharge characterization. See enclosures (1) and (2). 

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 23 July 1987. 
Petitioner was assigned to the ) on approximately 13 November 1987. See On 19 April 1989 the 
enclosure (3). had an explosion in the center gun room (the number two 16-inch gun turret)
which killed 47 crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret. 
See enclosure ( 4). 

d. Petitioner states that he was suffering from PTSD caused by the trauma from the explosion 
on the [REDACTED] and identifying and labeling bodies (five ofthem were his friends) and 
cleaning up after the explosion. He contends that the PTSD should mitigate his misconduct. See 
enclosure (2). 

e. On 2 May and 15 June 1989 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for conspiracy
to commit larceny, dereliction of duty, eight days ofunauthorized absence, absence from his
appointed place ofduty, and breaking restriction. See enclosure (3). 

f. Petitioner details the facts surrounding the larceny, noting that it happened after the fire. He 
contends that about three days after the explosion he attempted to cash a paycheck that had been 
endorsed over to his friend, that check had been stolen during the fire. He states that it was the 
friend that was trying to steal some other sailor's paycheck. He implicated the friend and he was 
apprehended. See enclosure (2). 

g. Petitioner states that he broke restriction and went UA to take his now wife to her prom. 
See enclosure (2). 

h. As a result of the foregoing, administrative discharge was initiated by reason of misconduct 
due to commission of a serious offense. Petitioner waived his rights have his case heard by an 
administrative discharge board (ADB). The separation authority directed an other than 
honorable (OTH) discharge by reason ofmisconduct due to commission ofa serious offense. 
See enclosure (5). 

i. On 2 September 1989, Petitioner was discharged with an OTH characterization ofservice. 
See enclosure ( 6). 

j. On 14 October 2014, Petitioner was examined by a Psychiatrist
who concluded that Petitioner "has chronic and severe post-traumatic stress disorder caused by 
the events which he experienced on the [REDACTED] in 1989, which has never been properly diagnosed 
or treated." 

k. BUMED provided an advisory opinion, enclosure (8), which concludes that there was a 
significant drop in Petitioner's performance after the explosion. The AO concludes that 
Petitioner "suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his service that interfered with 
his judgement and led to an undesirable discharge." 

BOARD'S CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence ofrecord, the Board concluded that 
Petitioner's request did not warrant favorable action. In coming to this conclusion, the Board 
considered whether Petitioner suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in light of 
the Secretary of Defense's memorandum, "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans 
Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" of September 3, 2014. In accordance w~th the 
guidance, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to the documentation of the 
Petitioner's PTSD symptoms and the civilian psychiatrist's determination of the existence of 
service-connected PTSD. However, the Board concluded that the statements Petitioner provided 
and post-service PTSD diagnosis did not significantly mitigate the seriousness of his misconduct 
and it was their opinion that Petitioner's misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would be 
offered by the liberal consideration afforded a petitioner with PTSD. Although the advisory 
opinion notes that Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition while in service, the Board 
could not find the nexus between Petitioner's condition and his misconduct. 

BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION: 

The Board recommends that Petitioner's request be denied. 

BCNR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CONCLUSION: 

Notwithstanding the Board's conclusion, I conclude that the petitioner has established the 
existence ofprobable material error or iajustice in his record and that full corrective action 
should be taken. I concur with the advisory opinion, which notes that Petitioner had no 
disciplinary actions prior to the explosion and that within three days he was charged with 
misconduct and that that there was a significant drop in Petitioner's performance after the 
explosion. I conclude that Petitioner had PTSD after the explosion on the and the 
PTSD should mitigate his subsequent misconduct. 

In view ofthe foregoing, I find the existence ofan injustice warranting the following corrective 
action: 

BCNR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner's Naval record be corrected to show that on 2 September 1989, he was issued a 
general (under honorable conditions) character of service, separation authority MPM 1910-164, 
and separation code JFF.
 
That no further changes be made to Petitioner's record. 

That a copy of this Report ofProceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record. 
That, upon request, the Department of Veteran's aAffairs be informed that Petitioner's 
application was received by the Board on I September 2016. 
 
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. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for your review and action. 


Executive Director