DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1297-19 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 26 Nov 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service from the Marine Corps be upgraded to honorable. Additionally, he requested that his social security number (SSN) ending in on his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be corrected to read . 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 March 2020, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the petition, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified 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 17 April 1973. During the period from 2 July to 20 November 1975, he received five nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for five periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 15 days. On 21 November 1975, he began a period of UA that lasted 99 days, ending on 18 February 1976. On 25 February 1976, Petitioner submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service in order to avoid trial by court-martial for 99 days of unauthorized absence. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, he conferred with a qualified military lawyer, was advised of his rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, his request for discharge was granted and on 17 March 1976, he was discharged with an OTH characterization of service in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a result of this action, he was spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. c. Petitioner contends that his discharge did not take into consideration his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused directly by military service in the Marine Corps. He states that he received no counseling, and no mental health evaluation or assistance was offered or given. He also contends that he was told that his characterization of service would automatically be upgraded after six months if he stayed out of trouble. In this regard, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time. Petitioner provided a personal statement, statements from fellow Marine witnesses, medical records, military records before and after the accident (described below), a Naval Aviation Report on the Helicopter Incident with explosion and loss of life, and Department of Veterans Affairs denial letter. d. Enclosure (2) states that in Petitioner’s discharge physical, he did not report any mental health symptoms and noted, “I feel that I am in excellent health.” In his personal statement, Petitioner stated the origin of his issues stemmed from a traumatic incident on 03 April 1974, at , , where he was undergoing training as an . While in his assignment as , a helicopter he was directing to its place on the tarmac exploded with loss of the aircrew. Petitioner felt responsible as the ground controller, and experienced great guilt lasting to the present. This incident, and its impact on the Petitioner, was corroborated by statements of support from several Marines that were in the tower with the Petitioner during the incident. Petitioner’s personal statement describes his transfer out of the Occupational Field and loss of confidence following the traumatic incident. He described increasing alcohol abuse and psychological symptoms consistent with PTSD. Statements from several people, to include his wife at the time, corroborated these symptoms. Petitioner’s PTSD symptoms and alcohol dependence resulted in failed employment and relationships. He reported that he was approved for full Social Security Disability Benefits in 2005 due to his “inability to safely conduct himself in a work place without hazarding himself and other employees.” A review of available service medical records failed to reveal any entries indicating Petitioner suffered from depression, anxiety, or other psychological conditions during his military service. Petitioner did submit a civilian medical record from Family Services of dated 04 April 2017, which listed his mental health diagnoses of depression, anxiety and PTSD “resulting from an incident which occurred in his life while in the Marine Corps.” He was prescribed psychotherapy and several psychotropic medications appropriate for PTSD, Depression, and Anxiety. In summary, the AO determined that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention of service-connected trauma mitigating misconduct. This is due to a preponderance of objective supportive evidence that during Petitioner’s military service, he experienced a severe traumatic incident that led to the development of PTSD. Though Petitioner did not indicate he was experiencing any mental health symptoms or conditions on his separation physical, or during his administrative separation processing, it is notable that his career deterioration and misconduct all began after – and likely because of – the explosion. The behaviors cited in his misconduct, including avoidance, substance abuse, social isolation, increased irritability and anger, unstable interpersonal relationships, cognitive disruption, and memory disruption, are very frequently seen in PTSD, and convincingly detailed in his personal statement and the corroborating statements of support from others. Based on the available evidence, it was opined that there is sufficient evidence the Petitioner developed PTSD during, and likely because of, his military service. It is reasonable to attribute Petitioner’s misconduct to his PTSD. With regard to Petitioner’s SSN, it appears that an administrative error was made when his final DD Form 214 was prepared. Throughout his entire service record, his correct SSN was used ending in . 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 partial relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (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 overall record of service, and although there is sufficient evidence to attribute the Petitioner’s misconduct to a mental health condition, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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). 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 OTH and re-characterization to “General (under honorable conditions)” is now more appropriate. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 17 March 1976, he received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). That his new DD Form 214 show the correct SSN ending in . That no further action be granted. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 16 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 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. 3/10/2020