From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo) (c) PDUSD Memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 (Kurta Memo) (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 w/attachments (2) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 26 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), stating that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his military service. He is requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He also impliedly requests that the narrative reason for his discharge, separation authority and separation code be changed. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 22 February 2021, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that 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 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 opinions (AOs) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. 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 3 April 1990. c. During the period from 30 November 1990 to 29 May 1991, Petitioner participated in Operation Desert Shield. While deployed, Petitioner was exposed to hazardous agents from burning oil wells and issued an experimental nerve agent. d. On 11 October 1992, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated . e. On 25 January 1993, Petitioner was counseled concerning his deficiencies of driving under the influence, and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military/civilian authorities. He was warned that failure to correct his discrepancies could result in administrative discharge action. f. On 4 June 1993, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongful use of amphetamine (Crystal) methamphetamine. g. On 10 June 1993, Petitioner’s First Sergeant recommended that he be separated from the Marine Corps stating, in part, that: (i) Petitioner’s total lack of leadership and disregard for the rules and regulations resulted in another lance corporal in the battery also using illegal substances while on liberty with Petitioner; and (ii) Petitioner had always been a superior performer in his work area, but could not control himself in the civilian community while on liberty. h. On 21 June 1993, Petitioner’s commanding officer forwarded his case recommending that he be administrative discharge due to drug abuse. At that time, Petitioner stated the reason for his actions was peer pressure. i. On 7 July 1993, Petitioner was counseled concerning wrongful use of a controlled substance, following orders and other violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and his involvement of a discreditable nature with military/civilian authorities. He was warned that failure to correct discrepancies could result in administrative discharge action. j. On 12 July 1993, Petitioner notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. At that time, after being afforded his procedural rights, Petitioner elected to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB). k. On 5 August 1993, Petitioner was found to be alcohol dependent and recommended for Level III rehabilitation treatment. l. On 13 August 1993, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that Petitioner be separated from the Marine Corps with an OTH discharge due to drug abuse. m. On 8 September 1993, Petitioner elected to waive his right to have his case heard before an ADB. n. On 22 October 1993, Petitioner’s case was reviewed by a staff judge advocate, and found to be sufficient in law and fact. o. On 8 February 1994, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service due to drug abuse. At that time, Petitioner’s conduct trait average was 4.1. p. With his application, Petitioner states he has been recently diagnosed by a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) psychiatrist to have service connected PTSD for combat and humanitarian service from the first Gulf War, noting that Petitioner was never diagnosed or treated, was separated from the Marine Corps for substance abuse that was a consequence of his PTS, and has been suffering from PTSD and has not been able to deal with it. q. Enclosure (2), concurs with Petitioner's contention of PTSD stemming from traumatic experiences in Desert Shield/Storm (awarded Combat Action Ribbon) and primarily Operation Sea Angel 1991-bangladesh typhoon Humanitarian Mission (prepared and filled mass graves, witnessed hundreds of dead bodies (most traumatic were dead and dying babies). PTSD diagnosis well established in DVA PTSD Disability Exam and Statement in Support of Claim citing same stressors. Misconduct occurred after the traumatic events and consisted of alcohol abuse (DWI) and testing positive for amphetamines. It was opined that this diagnosis should be considered as mitigation for misconduct. r. 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, 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 BOARD CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e) intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, to include his conduct trait average of 4.1, and in light of enclosures (2) and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “Honorable,” and that the narrative reason for separation read “Secretarial Authority.” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. BORAD RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected to show that on 8 February 1994, he received an “Honorable” characterization of service. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to read “Determination of Service Secretary – Secretary of the Navy Plenary Authority,” That the separation authority read “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214.” That the separation code read “JFF1.” That the Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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 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 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 of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.