DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 1614-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER CPL , , USMC 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 ecords 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 (AO) of 18 Dec 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner (widow), filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her late husband’s other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 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’ the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies. In addition, the Board considered post-service medical diagnosis and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a 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. During the period from 7 May 1965 to 24 April 1966, Petitioner’s husband participated in peroration against the insurgent communist forces in the Republic of Vietnam. On 28 October 1966, he reenlisted in the Marine Corps after serving over three years of honorable service. On 5 December 1967, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for 21 days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 1 April 1968, he was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 58 days of UA. On 25 September 1968, he began a period of UA that lasted 170 days, ending with his apprehension by civil authorities on 14 March 1969. On 24 April 1969, Petitioner’s husband signed a voluntary statement regarding his drug involvement. On 17 June 1969, he was notified of an administrative discharge action. It was recommended that he receive an undesirable discharge for unfitness due to drug misuse. Petitioner’s husband turned himself in when he took some unknown pills that turned him purple. He admitted to the Naval Investigative Service (NIS), an extensive in-service history of drug abuse. At that time, he requested to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 3 July 1969, an ADB recommended that he received an undesirable discharge due to unfitness. On 16 September 1969, a staff judge advocate reviewed and found his case to be sufficient in law and fact. On 22 September 1969, the separation authority directed that he be separated from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 30 September 1969, he was discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. c. In Petitioner’s application, she states that, as demonstrated by her husband’s first tour of service, he was a good Marine. He received the Vietnam Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal and Good Conduct Medal, for service while in Vietnam. Upon his return, he found his best friend in bed with his then wife. The trauma along with his fresh return from Vietnam was too much for him to deal with, so he gave up on life and the Marines. All he wanted was out, so he admitted to using marijuana although he never did. Later in life, he was found to have PTSD. She would like to clear his name and get his discharge upgraded to general. d. The AO, enclosure (2), notes that there were no in-service medical records available. The AO noted that medical records from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) were also not accessible. However, a DVA Decision Letter dated 22 March 2018, was included in supporting documents stating that service connection for the cause of former servicemember death was granted (metastatic prostate cancer as a presumptive condition arising from Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam). The AO concluded that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to Petitioner’s military service that may have mitigated his misconduct. e. Petitioner’s husband 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 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. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s husband request warrants favorable action. The Board reviewed her application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d) intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s husband misconduct, however, based upon his overall record of service, to including his Vietnam service, and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “General (under honorable condition).” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Former member’s widow be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that on 30 September 1969, he received a “General (under honorable conditions)” discharged. No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s husband naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s husband 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Grant Relief) Reviewed and Approved (Deny Relief) 10/25/2020