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 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD 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 (e) SECDEF memo of 25 Jul 2018 “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Advisory Opinion of 6 March 2020. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a former member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his other than honorable characterization of service be upgraded to a general discharge. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 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 enclosure, relevant portions of the subject former member’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also requested and considered a 6 March 2020 advisory opinion (AO) of a Navy psychiatrist, which is at enclosure (2). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the 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. Regarding Petitioner’s request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered his case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 and began a period of active duty on 18 September 1967. e. The Petitioner served in the and participated in combat operations from June 1968 to approximately March 1969. f. Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment twice, and on 3 March 1969, the Petitioner was convicted by a special court-martial of disobeying an order to go to a landing zone and get on a helicopter as well as communicating a threat. As part of his punishment, he received a bad conduct discharge. g. On 12 May 1970, the Petitioner was discharged with a bad conduct discharge (which was reflected on his DD Form 214 as an other than honorable discharge). h. Petitioner contends he developed a mental health condition that might have mitigated the misconduct that led to his undesirable characterization of service. It is the Petitioner’s contention that, as a result of facing the threat of death every day in, his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and illness in combat. He also contends that he suffered from witnessing racial discrimination. When he returned from , he could not adjust to life as a normal person. Accordingly, the Board requested an AO, which made the following determination: [The Petitioner’s] service record confirmed deployment to and participation in combat operations. Petitioner submitted personal statements citing PTSD symptoms stemming from his deployment to as contributory to his misconduct. In his in-service medical record, he did endorse multiple psychological symptoms and behavioral changes that could be attributed to PTSD. The types of misconduct represented in his NJP’s and Special Court-Martial are consistent with the maladaptive behaviors and psychological symptoms seen in PTSD. The AO concluded, “[t]hough Petitioner has not been clinically diagnosed with PTSD, it is as likely as not he developed PTSD as a result of his military service. Additionally, it is as likely as not that this mental health condition contributed to his state of mind leading to his misconduct.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in light of references (b) through (e), the Board found the existence of an error warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found support for the Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from a mental condition that mitigated his misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to upgrade his discharge to general. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing him a new DD Form 214 reflecting that on 12 May 1970, he received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. That no further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings shall 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 13 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 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.