DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 2160-19  
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, “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:  NR20190002160 of 30 Mar 2020 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service from other than honorable (OTH) to honorable. 

2.  The Board, consisting of        , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy 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 on 15 February 2011.  A review of his record reveals he was noted as an “outstanding lab tech . . . highly recommended for advancement to petty officer third class.” It appears he served without disciplinary incident until 25 September 2014, when he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an 11-day unauthorized absence (UA).  On 13 February 2015, he received a second NJP for a two-day UA and wrongful use/possession of a controlled substance.  

    d.  Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and drug abuse.  After he waived all of his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct.  Concurring with the CO, the discharge authority directed Petitioner be separated with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  He was discharged on 13 April 2015. 

    e.  Petitioner contends he was misdiagnosed in-service with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder  (ADHD) and prescribed numerous controlled substances.  His record reflects an earlier statement in which he states to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) that continued testing ruled out his ADHD diagnosis; and his medications, which he had begun to rely upon, were stopped.  Per his NDRB documentation, he continued to use those medications as well as amphetamines and marijuana. 

   f.  As part of the Board’s review, a Navy mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 30 March 2020.  The AO states Petitioner’s available service records indicate he was treated for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and inattention during military service.  The AO also confirmed that within two years of discharge, he was treated for generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and substance abuse.  Further, the AO states his mental health providers felt his UA periods stemmed from his depression, despair, and avoidance of his chain of command and his substance abuse represented a “dysfunctional self-medication strategy for his depressive and anxiety symptoms.” It was the AO author’s considered medical opinion that there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner more likely than not incurred a mental health condition as a result of his military service and this mental health condition contributed to his in-service misconduct.   

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.  The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d).  Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. 

The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum is to ease the process for Veterans seeking redress and assist the Boards in reaching fair and consistent results in “these difficult cases.”  The memorandum describes the difficulty Veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized” mental health conditions.  The memorandum further explains that, since mental health conditions were not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many Veterans, and diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, Veterans were constrained in their arguments that mental health conditions should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct underlying their discharge. 

The Board, relying upon the AO and applying liberal consideration, determined there was sufficient evidence that Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition while in-service which mitigated, but did not excuse, his misconduct.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that a general characterization of service was most appropriate.  Additionally, in the interest of justice, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.” 

RECOMMENDATION: 

In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 

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 25 February 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 Regulation, 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. 


5/29/2020