Docket No: 1888-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 (AO) of 30 Dec 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of 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 his the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered post-service medical diagnosis, enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified mental health professional, and a rebuttal statement. 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 27 May 1970. On 2 December 1970, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). On 18 December 1970, Petitioner was assigned a trait average of 2.8 in Military Appearance due to careless appearance and failure to prepare for personnel inspections and a mark of 2.6 was assigned in Adaptability due to poor attitude and immaturity. On 3 June 1971, he received NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 17 September 1971, Petitioner reported to sick call looking for a psychiatrist. He was somewhat depressed and defiant at the same time, with a nearly blank affect and slow, quiescent speech. He stated he wanted to be discharged, that he did not “like” any of his superiors and does not understand why he should do any work. At that time, he was diagnosed with an Immature Personality and Dysocial Personality with Depressive Reaction. On 12 October 1971, he received a third NJP for sleeping on watch. On 25 January 1972, medical personal reported that Petitioner was followed for 5 months by various medical departments concerning his inability to conform to regulations. At that time, the impression was that he had a Passive Aggressive Personality. It was recommended that he be administratively discharge by reason of unsuitability. During the period from 17 April to 15 June 1972, he had two period of UA totaling 55 days. On 16 June 1972, Petitioner was counseled concerning his deficiencies in conduct, and that continuation may be grounds for administrative discharge. On 30 June 1972, a medical entry states that Petitioner admitted to the use of LSD, amphetamines, marijuana, hashish, and glue over the previous 18 months. The medical report found no evidence of psychosis or suicide/homicidal ideation and no evidence of physical or psychological dependence. He was recommended for local drug counseling program prior to his discharge. On 7 July 1972, Petitioner was granted a drug exception. On 11 July 1972, Petitioner submitted request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totaling 55 days. On 27 July 1972, medical personnel found him to be competent to stand trial and responsible for his actions. His case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that is request for discharge be approved. He was found physically qualified for discharge. On 2 August 1972, the separation approved his request for discharge and directed that he received an undesirable discharge for the good of the service. On 3 August 1972, he was discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. c. With his application, he states, through counsel, that his chaotic upbringing resulted in his immaturity and inability to adapt to military service. He alleged that he was physically and emotionally abused and assaulted for nine months. He contended that the offending Sailor was discharged from Navy when he reported the abuse. This abuse led to his development of PTSD and subsequent misconduct with resulted in his undesirable discharge from the Navy. His discharge reflects in large part the Navy’s failure to properly screen him prior to enlistment and during his service. He contends that although the Navy recognized his problem, the Navy failed to take appropriate action, which could have made him a productive sailor. d. The AO, enclosure (2), states that Petitioner’s in-service medical records and post-discharge psychological assessments provide sufficient evidence that Petitioner does have a diagnosis of PTSD that can be attributed to his military service. The AO concludes that it is more likely than not, his misconduct can be attributed in great part to this mental condition. e. 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 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 request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). The Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, however, based upon Petitioner’s overall record of service, and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, and the AO the Board determined that 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 Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 to show that on 3 August1972, he received a “General (under honorable conditions)” characterization of service. 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 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.