From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF Memo of 3 Sep 14 “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD” (c) PDUSD Memo of 24 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 TBI” (d) PDUSD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 30 May 19 (3) Updated AO of 2 July 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his general characterization of service be upgraded to honorable. He also impliedly requested that his reason and authority “BUPERSMAN 3420180.3C & BUPERS MSG R271351Z Oct 70 -265-” be changed. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 2 December 2019, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional, 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 2 April 1970. On 20 August 1970, he was referred to medical personnel. His refusal to work, hiding from work, and pleading to get out of the Navy to go back to school, were found to be indicative of an Immaturity Reaction that existed prior to his entry onto active duty. However, it was determined that such a diagnosis in no way absolves him from responsibility for his actions. The results of the psychiatric interview indicated that it was likely he would continue to use poor judgement, extreme immaturity, and maladaptive and unacceptable behavior. It was recommended that he be administratively separated from the Navy. On 1 October 1970, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for escaping from lawful custody. On 12 October 1970, administrative action was initiated to separate him from the naval service for unsuitability because of his personality disorder which was diagnosed as Immaturity Reaction. At that time, he was inform that his characterization of service would be honorable, or whichever is warranted by his service record. On 16 October 1970, his case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he be separated from the Navy due to unsuitability. On 27 October 1970, the separation authority directed that Petitioner be discharged from the Navy, type warranted by his service record. On 4 November 1970, he received a general (under honorable conditions) based on his misconduct and conduct average. c. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. His conduct average was 2.6. At the time of his service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required to be considered for a fully honorable characterization of service. d. Petitioner contends that due to a mental health condition he suffered and the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and upgrade of his characterization of service is warranted. e. Enclosure (2), an AO from a Navy mental health professional that states that in Petitioner’s discharge request, he asked for an honorable characterization of service, attributing his inability to adapt to the Navy to his youth and immaturity. He did not report trauma experiences at that time. In his current request for review, he submitted a statement from his spouse that he incurred a trauma during his military service. He submitted statements of support from a community leader and his professor attesting to his work ethic and contributions in the community since the military. He also submitted a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) listing 100% disability for service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He reported that his PTSD stressors were physical assault by his boot camp company commander and a near-drowning incident during basic training, as well as being confined to a closed locker below decks. He has a diagnosis of PTSD that the VA has determined is attributed to military service. However, it is more difficult to attribute his misconduct to PTSD. While UA can be an avoidance symptom of PTSD, the Petitioner was evaluated in service, and found to be responsible for his actions. Although PTSD was not a recognized mental illness at that time, he did not report trauma in his discharge statement. He did not state that the Navy was too difficult, or his leaders were too strict, or express a fear of water when he requested an honorable characterization of service. Additional records, such as post-service medical records describing his PTSD symptoms and their specific link to his misconduct, are required to render an alternate opinion. Based on the available evidence, it was opined there is insufficient evidence to attribute his misconduct to PTSD incurred during military service. f. Enclosure (3), is an updated AO that states that the Petitioner submitted a letter of support from a physician from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital, where he has sought treatment. He also provided a July 1970 medical record, which noted that he complained of lack of breath and a harsh cough while swimming but had no symptoms when he reported to a screening clinic. He submitted an August 1969 medical record in which he Petitioner complained of pain in his right lower leg, there was no swelling upon physical examination, and he was prescribed medication for pain, instructed to use a hot compress and a bandage wrap, and instructed to return in the morning. Further, he submitted a VA disability decision letter granting 100% disability for service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Petitioner has a diagnosis of PTSD that can be attributed to military service. However, there is some inconsistency with his military record and his current statement of what transpired that makes it difficult to render an opinion regarding his misconduct. His service record indicates that he hid intentionally to evade work. However, the Petitioner’s statement is that he was accidentally locked in a confined space during an unexpected drill. While it is possible that his unauthorized absence was related to emerging symptoms of PTSD, it is at least as likely that his misconduct was related to his personality disorder diagnosed in service. g. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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” memorandum of 25 August 2017. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action. Although he was diagnosed with a personality disorder, the majority concludes that, his Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be changed to read that the narrative reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority” to eliminate the possibilities of invasive questions. Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statements that based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to attribute his misconduct to PTSD incurred during military service, and it is at least as likely that his misconduct was related to his personality disorder that was diagnosed in service. The Board voted to leave the characterization of service as “General (under honorable condition).” RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Separation authority to read “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” Separation Code to read “JFF.” No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the VA is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 21 August 2018. 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 Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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.