DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9464-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy 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 of 17 Jan 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service be upgraded to Honorable. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 November 2019, 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, relevant portions of the naval records, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional. 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 30 August 1965. On 29 October 1965, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful order. On 29 November 1966, he arrived in and participated in two counter-insurgency operations. On 16 March 1967, while still in , he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of unauthorized absence, four specifications of disobeying a lawful order, wrongful appropriation of a jeep, and being drunk in uniform. Petitioner departed on 20 May 1967. During the period from 20 October 1967 to 1 February 1968, he received three NJPs for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling five days, and failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 3 June 1968, he was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)failure to obey a lawful order, being disrespectful in language, two specifications of disobeying a lawful order, treat with contempt, by pointing his finger at another Marine and becoming extremely loud, and attempting to escape from lawful custody. On 4 October 1968, he received NJP for disobeying a lawful order. Petitioner remained on active duty until 9 January 1969, when he received a general release from active duty, and was transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve. c. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. Petitioner’s conduct average was 3.9 At the time of his service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required to be considered for a fully honorable characterization of service. On 7 January 1972, he was discharged from the Marine Corps with a general characterization of service. d. Petitioner contends that he returned from with PTSD, but it was not called PTSD, it was called whatever the psychiatrist wanted to call it. In his case, it was called Neurotic Inhibition and claimed it was not due to but to his parents being separated while he was in . He was a Lance Corporal up for E-4, when he had to engage in combat. He was very afraid. He got through it alive but it made him feel very scared, and he began having problems. He continued to do his job but was more careful than before. When he returned to the States, he thought he would be better, but he got worse. All of the trivial things he was doing in seemed like nothing. Picking up cigarette butts and marching seemed trivial. His emotions were the same, no sleeping at night and doing his job. Guarding the base was not bad, he was used to doing that. He only wanted to feel normal like before, maybe go to a movie or to walk around in , but he always felt someone was following him. In restaurants, he made sure the silverware was metal and he would sit against the wall. When he went home for weekends, he would stay alone or get drunk with somebody. He wanted to die. He could not talk to anyone about how he felt because he did not know how he felt. He has three brothers, who all served proudly in the Marine Corps, except for him, but he was the only one who served in . In his town, he is known as a Veterans Advocate. He has helped many veterans with claims for benefits to the Department of Veterans affairs (VA). He has made a better live for himself and those around him. He has five children. He asked for help to get some of his dignity back by being able to Display an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps. e. Enclosure (2), states that in March 1968, Petitioner received a mental health evaluation due to extreme social anxiety he was experiencing around women, which increased following his return from . His evaluator opined that the anxiety stemmed from the recent separation of his parents and diagnosed him with neurotic inhibition. In his current request, Petitioner submitted a statement that he incurred unrecognized PTSD during his combat service in . Since his military service, he has written a book that describes how he overcame his PTSD symptoms. He also submitted VA discharge summary records indicating that he was hospitalized with symptoms of PTSD from April 1998 to July 1998. He submitted VA disability ratings indicating that he has a 50% disability rating for service connected PTSD. In addition, he has been diagnosed with nonservice connected major depression and panic disorder with agoraphobia. No additional records were available for review. The Petitioner has provided limited post-service treatment records. In-service, he was diagnosed with a mental health condition that today would be called social phobia or PTSD. The VA called his in-service diagnosis PTSD and has determined that it can be attributed to military service. Some of the Petitioner’s misconduct could be attributed to PTSD. However, his first NJP occurred before his deployment to and cannot be attributed to PTSD. It is likely that his other misconduct could be attributed, at least in part, to PTSD symptoms. Post-service treatment records describing the Petitioner’s mental health symptoms would clarify the extent to which his misconduct should be attributed to PTSD, but based on the available evidence, it is opined that there is information to attribute some of the Petitioner’s misconduct to PTSD. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, based upon his record of service, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to honorable. The Board notes Petitioner’s conduct and does not condone his actions. However, the Board’s decision is based on Petitioner’s evidence as reflected by comments in enclosure (2), that he was suffering from a mental health condition at the time of his service, which contributed to his misconduct and subsequent general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Board felt that Petitioner’s mental health condition should mitigate the misconduct he committed while on active duty since this condition outweighed the severity of the misconduct. The Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been general (under honorable conditions), and re-characterization to “Honorable” is now more appropriate. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 9 January 1969, he received an honorable characterization of service. Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 20 August 2018. 4. 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. 12/23/2019