DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1608-19 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, “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 Pursuant to 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190001608 of 17 Jan 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting an upgrade to his characterization of service and correction to the narrative reason for separation on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 March 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and an advisory opinion from 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. 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 and began a period of active duty on 21 August 1995. On 18 November 1995, after an emergency mental health evaluation and inpatient treatment, he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and personality disorder, not otherwise specified, but was not recommended for administrative separation. d. On 26 January 1996, Petitioner was assigned to USS 12 May 1997, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 16 days. On 19 October 1997, he was convicted by summary court-martial for a 54-day UA and missing ship’s movement. On 30 October 1997, he received a second NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 4 November 1997, he received a third NJP for UA from restriction muster. On 18 November 1997, he received a fourth NJP for two instances of being absent from his appointed place of duty. On 26 January 1998, Petitioner received a fifth NJP for a six-day UA and failure to go to his appointed place of duty. e. Petitioner’s record is incomplete in that it does not contain the documents pertaining to his administrative discharge but, based on his DD Form 214, it appears that after Petitioner was afforded his procedural rights, the separation authority directed discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 11 March 1998 with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. f. Petitioner contends his untreated adjustment disorder should be considered a mitigating factor to his subsequent misconduct. Specifically, he contends the following: 1) Petitioner’s command violated Department of Defense Directives when it involuntarily hospitalized him in excess of 72 hours and failed to properly notify him of his rights. 2) The command, having been made aware of the recommendation for outpatient care and of the 24 November 1995 follow-up appointment with mental health, failed to ensure Petitioner received continued mental health care. 3) The discrepancies in Petitioner’s reports of medical examination indicate the command failed to address Petitioner’s mental health issues prior to his final separation. 4) Petitioner’s characterization of service is clearly improper given his adjustment disorder diagnosis. a) Petitioner’s misconduct would not have occurred but for the Navy’s negligence in addressing his mental health issues at the time of original diagnosis. b) The Navy elected not to administratively discharge Petitioner after his diagnoses, thus they assumed the responsibility to follow through with the treatment recommendations of the attending psychiatrist, but Petitioner’s record is completely void of any evidence indicating his command complied with the ordered monitoring. c) Because he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, Petitioner should have been discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Instead, Petitioner was placed in an environment that exacerbated his adjustment disorder and lead to his OTH discharge. g. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 17 January 2020. The AO states Petitioner submitted evidence he was diagnosed with personality disorder and an adjustment disorder during his military service. The AO further states it is possible the subsequent UAs could be attributed to difficulty adjusting to shipboard duty but noted Petitioner appears to have successfully adapted to military service for more than a year following his hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). The Board determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that it was unjust for Petitioner to have been assigned to shipboard duty after being diagnosed with adjustment disorder and personality disorder after having suicidal ideations. The Board, noting Petitioner’s misconduct consisted of UAs, determined Petitioner’s misconduct was mitigated by his diagnosed mental health conditions and concluded his service warranted an upgraded characterization. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should reflect “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions”, 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. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 23 January 2019. 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. 4/8/2020