DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2904-16 
JUN 27 2017 

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

Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 
(b) SECDEF Memo of3 Sep 14 "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for 
Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by 
Veterans Claiming PTSD" 
(c) PDUSD Memo of24 Feb 16 "Consideration ofDischarge Upgrade Requests Pursuant 
to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI" 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
(2) Case summary 
(3) Post-service PTSD diagnosis dated 7 October 2015 
(4) Subject's naval record (excerpts) 
(5) BUMED memo 5740 Ser M34/16UM36073 dtd 2 Mar 17 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member ofthe Navy 
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) 
characterization ofservice be changed in light of current guidelines as reflected in references (b) 
and (c). Enclosures (1) through (5) apply. 

2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 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 of 
the enclosures, naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, post-service PTSD 
diagnosis, and an advisory opinion (AO) provided by Navy Bureau ofMedicine and Surgery 
(BUMED). 

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 ofthe 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive service on 
1N6vember1966. He arrived in the Republic ofVietnam on 6 August 1967. On 20 March 
1968, he was convicted at special court-martial (SPCM) for 2 periods of unauthorized absence 
(UA) totaling 53 days. On 26 September 1968, he was convicted at SPCM of 4 periods ofUA 
totaling 30 days, failure to follow a lawful order, violation of a lawful order, and destruction of 
government property. On 14 February 1969, Petitioner was convicted at SPCM for UA totaling 
3 days. He received nonjudical punishment on 23 May 1969, for throwing a knife at a hut. 
Petitioner was convicted by SPCM on 29 January 1970 for UA totaling 75 days and violating a 
lawful order. On 12 February 1970, he departed the Republic ofVietnam. 

d. On 2 June 1970, Petitioner was notified ofpending administrative separation action by 
reason ofunfitness due to frequent involvement. He elected to consult with legal counsel and 
subsequently requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 10 July 1970, the ADB 
recommended an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent 
involvement. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and on 4 September 1970, 
he was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 

e. Petitioner submitted enclosure (3), dated 7 October 2015, as evidence ofa post-service 
diagnosis of PTSD. 

f. Based on current BCNR policy and guidance, the Board requested an AO from BUMED, 
which is attached as enclosure (5). The AO indicated that Petitioner suffered from a mental 
health condition at the time ofhis service that interfered with his judgment and led to an 
undesirable discharge. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence ofrecord, and especially in light of enclosures 
(3) and (5), the Board concluded that Petitioner's request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board 
reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (c). Specifically, the 
Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this 
policy. 

The purpose ofthe Secretary ofDefense memorandum is to ease the process for veterans seeking 
redress and assist the Boards in reaching fair and consistent results in "these difficult cases." 
The memorandum describes the difficulty veterans face on "upgrading their discharges based on 
claims of previously unrecognized" PTSD. The memorandum further explains that since PTSD 
was not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many veterans, and 
diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, veterans were constrained in 
their arguments that PTSD should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were 
unable to establish a nexus between PTSD and the misconduct underlying their discharge. In 
this regard, based upon his record of service, to include service in Vietnam, relief in the form of 
his characterization of service should be changed to honorable. 

The Board notes Petitioner's misconduct and does not condone his actions. However, the 
Board's decision is based on Petitioner's evidence as reflected in his post-service PTSD 
diagnosis, and subsequent periods ofunauthorized absence as attributed to his misconduct. The 
Board was able to reasonably conclude that the PTSD condition existed at the time ofhis 
misconduct, and subsequently resulted in his other than honorable discharge. After carefully 
considering all the evidence, the Board felt that Petitioner's assertion ofPTSD should mitigate 
the misconduct he committed while on active duty since this condition outweighed the severity 
ofthe misconduct. With that being determined, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is 
served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner's service as having been other than honorable, 
and recharacterization to an honorable discharge is now more appropriate. 

In view ofthe foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following 
corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he was issued an honorable discharge on 
4 September 1970, vice the other than honorable discharge actually issued on that day. 

That Petitioner be a issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD 
Form 214). 

That a copy ofthis Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record. 

That, upon request, the Department ofVeterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application 
was received by the Board on 30 March 2016. 

4. It is certified that 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. 

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6( e) of the revised Procedures of the 
Board for Correction ofNaval 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 ofreference (a), has been approved by the Board on 
behalf ofthe Secretary ofthe Navy. 

Executive director