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 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 18 Nov 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her late husband’s Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service be upgraded to Honorable. She states that he was contending with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 June 2020, 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 her husband’s 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. 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner’s husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 4 October 1988. On 28 April 1989, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go at the time prescribed to the student control morning formation. Additionally, he was counseled concerning his substandard performance of duty for failing to conform to military standards and regulations. On 23 October 1989 and 1 May 90, he received NJP for showing disrespect to a squadron duty officer and unauthorized absence from barracks formation. On 31 July 1990, he was counseled concerning his frequent involvement, substandard performance, and failure to conform to military standards and regulations, and he was warned that failure to improve his performance or continued violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice could result in administrative discharge action. On 24 January 1991, he received his fourth NJP for disrespect, failure to obey an order and regulation to conserve water, and being UA from field day (cleaning duty). d. On 18 June 1991, Petitioner’s husband was notified of administrative discharge action due to a pattern of misconduct. After being afforded his procedural rights, he elected to have his case heard before an administrative discharge Board (ADB). His case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he be discharged from the Marine Corps for a pattern of misconduct. On 15 July 1991, he submitted a request for an administrative separation with a General characterization of service, if he waived his right to an ADB. On 13 September 1991, the separation authority disapproved his request for a conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board (ADB) in exchange for a General discharge. Subsequently, he waived his right to request to have his case heard before an ADB, and it was directed that he be discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. On 18 September 1991, he was discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. e. Petitioner contends that the chain of command and prior Navy Discharge Board were not aware that her husband was suffering from service-connected PTSD stemming from an explosion and deaths onboard the USS . She contends that the service-connected PTSD serves as a basis for reconsideration of the previous denials of her husband’s request for an upgrade. She asserts that his discharge was primarily due to his misconduct after his service-connected PTSD began influencing his actions. f. The AO noted that Petitioner’s husband was exposed to major traumas during his military service and was subsequently diagnosed post-service with PTSD due to these stressors. It can be reasonably assumed that the development of the undiagnosed PTSD condition may have negatively influenced his occupational and social functioning and contributed to his January 1991 NJP and to a decrease in his military bearing and performance in the time after the boiler explosion and combat patrols, setting the stage for his OTH discharge. However, his first three NJP’s occurred before the traumatic incident aboard the USS or the combat patrols in and are not reasonably attributable to his PTSD. Based on the available evidence, it was opined that there is sufficient evidence that he developed PTSD as a result of his military service and that part of his misconduct can be attributed to his PTSD. 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 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" memorandum of 25 August 2017. 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 her application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether her application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. In this regard, based upon Petitioner’s husband’s overall record of service, the Board noted his conduct and does not condone his actions. However, the Board's decision is based on Petitioner’s husband’s record of service to include his participation in from August 1990 to March 1991, and evidence as reflected by his post-service diagnosis of PTSD by the Veterans Administration. The Board found that there is evidence to attribute some of his misconduct to PTSD incurred in service. The Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize his service as having been OTH, and re-characterization to “General” is now more appropriate. Further, the Board concurred with the AO that there is sufficient evidence that he developed PTSD as a result of his military service, and that part of his misconduct can be attributed to his PTSD. 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 18 September 1991, he received a General (under honorable conditions) discharge. 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. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 9 January 2019. 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 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. 7/2/2020