DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 9934-16 

MAY 22 2017 

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

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 
(b) SECDEF Memo of3 Sep 14 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
(2) Case summary 
(3) Subject's naval record (excerpts) 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the 
Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the characterization ofhis other 
than honorable (OTH) discharge be changed in light ofcurrent guidelines as reflected in 
reference (b). Enclosures (1) through (3) apply. 

2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 April 2017 and, 
pursuant to its regulations, a majority determined that the corrective action indicated below 
should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the 
Board consisted ofthe enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and 
policies. 

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. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest ofjustice to 
waive the statute oflimitations and review the application on its merits. 

c. Regarding Petitioner's request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a 
personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe 
issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary 
and considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

d. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 April 1997 and completed this first period 
ofservice on 3 October 2000. During his first enlistment he served as a recruiter's assistant in 
his hometown. On 28 April 1999, while staying over-night in his mother's mobile home a fire 
broke out in the bedroom where his infant nephew slept. The Petitioner was able to assist his 
stepfather and sister out ofthe burning mobile home extinguishing their burns with his bare 
hands, but was unable to save his infant nephew. 

e. Petitioner reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 October 2000. On 8 March 2001, he was 
awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for Heroism, for saving the lives oftwo family 
members in spite ofthe severe burns on his hands and feet. He served for about 10 months 
without disciplinary incident, but during the period of 9 August 2001 to 17 October 2001, he 
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for using disrespectful language toward 
a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful order, and for using provoking speech 
toward a military policeman. The Petitioner was the subject of psychological evaluations that 
diagnosed him with an antisocial personality disorder that manifested a longstanding disorder of 
character and behavior. It was further stated that the severity of it rendered him incapable of 
serving adequately in the Marine Corps. It was recommended that he should be processed for 
administrative separation. 

f. On 11 September 2002, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of 
conspiring with another to break restriction, failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed 
place ofduty, insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, using disrespectful 
language toward a noncommissioned officer, and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. 
Subsequently, he was notified ofpending administrative separation by reason ofmisconduct due 
to a pattern ofmisconduct at which time he waived his procedural rights to consult with legal 
counsel and to present his case to an administrative discharge board. The discharge authority 
approved and directed his separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct and on 13 November 2002, he was discharged. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. 

The panel reviewed his application under the guidance provided in reference (b), Secretary of 
Defense Memorandum of3 September 2014, "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for 
Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans 
Claiming PTSD." Specifically, the panel considered whether his application was the type that 
was intended to be covered by this policy. 

The purpose ofthe Secretary of Defense 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 ofservice 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, the Board initially 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 medical 
and/or mental history documentation and psychological evaluation of PTSD. Further, the Board 
concluded that the PTSD was a causative factor in Petitioner's misconduct; this evidence led the 
Board to conclude that the PTSD condition existed at the time of his discharge, and subsequently 
resulted in his OTH discharge. 

The Board determined that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the 
Petitioner's service as OTH, and recharacterization to general under honorable characterization 
ofservice is now more appropriate. Further the Board considered the Petitioner's Navy and 
Marine Corps Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, Sea 
Service Deployment Ribbon, and nine Letters of Appreciation. 

In view ofthe forgoing the Board finds the existence ofan injustice warranting the following 
corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 25 March 2009, Petitioner's 
characterization of service was "general under honorable conditions" the narrative reason for 
separation was "secretarial authority," and the SPD code assigned was "JFF." 

That Petitioner shall be issued a new DD Form 214 which reflects the general under honorable 
conditions discharge. 

That a copy ofthis Report of Proceedings should 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 26 October 2016. 

4. It is certified that a quorum was presented 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 ofthe 
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