DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER, , USMC, 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 22 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) applies. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 1 March 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 6 January 1965 c. On 3 July 1966, Petitioner arrived in . He departed on 24 April 1967, after participating in 13 different operations. d. On 7 August 1967, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two days of unauthorized absence (UA). e. On 2 July 1968, Petitioner was convicted by civil authorities of altering a state license. f. On 9 October 1968, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of UA and disobedience. g. On 28 October 1968, Petitioner received NJP destroying a fire extinguisher and chair, the property of the U.S. Government, and being drunk and disorderly in the barracks. h. On 11 December 1968, a Neuro Psychiatric Clinic Consultation Sheet states, that Petitioner’s commanding officer requested a consultation for Petitioner due to his continuing conflicts with authority. He was diagnosed with Dissocial Personality manifested by his repeated scrapes with authority, and little regard for proper social functioning. i. On 6 January 1969, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial of disobeying a lawful order, using disrespectful language, striking another Marine in the face with his fist, and assault by raising a nightstick and attempting to strike another Marine. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). j. On 9 June 1969, Petitioner was seen by a psychiatrist after his court-martial because he spoke of murderous thoughts towards superiors, and felt he should be admitted. At that time, he was observed by medical personnel and given a chance to cool down. k. 25 June 1969, Petitioner was medically admitted into a medical clinic with an admission diagnosis of an Immature Personality. He was later diagnosed with a Dissocial Personality. l. On 3 July 1969, Petitioner requested to be restored to full duty, and that his BCD be suspended. m. On 8 August 1969, Petitioner request for restoration to fully duty was denied. n. On 19 September 1969, Petitioner received his BCD. o. In his application, Petitioner stated that at the time of his infractions, he was suffering from PTSD due to his tour in . He is currently rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) at 70% for PTSD. Additionally, he provided a letter of support and a 35 page Client Information Record. p. Enclosure (2), states that based on the available evidence, it was opined that there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors consistent with PTSD, as well as other possible mental health conditions, during his military service and some of his misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD and mental health condition. q. 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, 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 19 September 1969, he received an “Honorable” characterization of service. That Petitioner’s naval be further corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to read “Secretarial 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 theforegoing 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 theBoard for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) andhaving assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoingcorrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board onbehalf of the Secretary of the Navy. Executive Director