DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10053-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USN, Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 (c) PDUSD memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuantto Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) PDUSD memo, “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,” of 25 August 2017 (e) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190010053 of 5 Jan 21 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to reflect an upgraded character of service and changes to his narrative reason for separation. 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 February 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo), the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, The Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider and the rebuttal to the AO received on 5 January 2021. 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. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 13 December 1985. On 12 May 1986, he received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful written order by consuming alcoholic beverages while in a duty status. On 23 June 1986, Petitioner began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended when he was apprehended on 19 April 1987. d. On 11 May 1987, Petitioner submitted a written request for administrative discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the extended UA. Prior to submitting this request, he conferred with a qualified military lawyer who advised him of his rights and warned him of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, his request was granted and his commanding officer was directed to issue him an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of the good of the service. On 5 June 1987, Petitioner was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. e. Petitioner contends the mental health issues he was facing in the military prevented him from serving the way he otherwise would have served. Specifically, he contends the following: 1) He experienced two tragic deaths while in-service and never truly acclimated to military service and life. Petitioner contends he turned to drinking to cope. He further contends he started hearing voices in his head which, coupled with his drinking problem, resulted in him absenting himself without authority. 2) He has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type with alcohol use disorder which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined was service-connected and granted 100% disability in August 2019. 3) The quality of his service generally met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance and warrants an honorable characterization. In the alternative, his characterization should be general, under honorable conditions, due to the overall quality of his service. 4) There were matters beyond his control that impaired his capability to serve or to avoid reprimand leading to discharge. Specifically, Petitioner contends his young age and immaturity made it impossible for him to adjust to military service. Further, the death of two fellow service members during training led to frequent nightmares, sweats, and an inability to focus which caused him to turn to drinking to cope. Lastly, he suffered from undiagnosed mental health problems. 5) Current discharge policy and procedures are materially different than those that led to his discharge. Had this new policy been in place during his service, there is substantial doubt that he would have been issued the discharge he received. Further, under current procedures, an OTH characterization would have been inappropriate because his misconduct did not rise to the present standards for that characterization. 6) Before he was involuntarily separated, he does not recall being provided with written notice of certain rights that would have changed the nature and character of his discharge. Specifically, Petitioner contends he did not receive written notice; did not know his separation could result in discharge, release from active duty, or the characterization proposed; he was not informed of his right to submit statements in his defense; and was not informed of his right to consult with and be appointed counsel. Lastly, he contends he was not provided with the required pre-separation health assessment. 7) References (d) and (e) apply to his discharge situation. Petitioner further contends his post-service accomplishments warrant relief. Specifically, he contends his job history, community volunteerism, character references, rehabilitation, and length of time since conduct warrant relief. f. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided enclosure (3). The AO states that Petitioners’ in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated any mental health condition. The AO further states that schizoaffective disorder is a commonly misdiagnosed disorder given the intricacies of a mood disorder coupled with a psychotic disorder and the causes are generally unknown. However, stressful events, such as the unexpected death of two friends, can trigger symptoms. Further, the AO states Petitioner was at the age of a typical first psychotic break for males. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health disorder. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (e). The Board, applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered from schizoaffective disorder. The Board determined his misconduct was mitigated by his mental health condition however, a general, under honorable conditions, characterization is appropriate when considering the length of Petitioner’s UA. In the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, indicating his characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions,” the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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 the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 2/18/2021 Executive Director