From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER Ref: (a) Title 10, United States Code, Section 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) OMPF (3) Advisory Opinion of 27 March 2020 1.Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting an upgrade to his characterization of service to an honorable on the basis that he suffered from a mental health condition during his military service. 2.The Board, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 July 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 ofthe enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records and applicable statutes, regulationsand policies. 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, the 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 November 85. On December 1985, Petitioner was briefed on the Navy’s policy concerning drug and alcohol abuse. In 1988, Petitioner was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). On January 1989, Petitioner received an administrative counseling regarding his drug abuse, and was informed that he was being retained in Navy. Petitioner was given corrective actions, and warned that further deficiencies in his performance or conduct could result in disciplinary action and/or processing for separation. c. On September 1989, Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy. In October 1990, Petitioner attempted suicide by overdosing with Nytol. On 16 November 1990, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a brief period of unauthorized absence (UA). Additionally, Petitioner was counseled and warned, that further misconduct, could result in administrative discharge action. On 18 December 1990, Petitioner received NJP for one day of UA. It appears he served without incident until May 1993, when he self-admitted to buying and using crack cocaine. Petitioner was then notified of administrative discharge action due to drug abuse. After being afforded his procedural rights, Petitioner elected not to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. d. On 15 June 1993, Petitioner declined a 30-day inpatient treatment program via the Department of Veterans Affairs. On 24 June 1993, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority. On 19 July 1993, the separation authority directed that Petitioner receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to drug abuse. On 2 August 1993, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. e. A qualified Navy mental health professional further reviewed Petitioner’s request for correction to his record and provided the Board with an advisory opinion (AO) regarding his petition (enclosure (3)). The mental health professional reviewed Petitioner’s contentions including his personal statement, in conjunction with his medical records, in order to evaluate Petitioner’s assertion of suffering from a mental health condition during his service. Based on the available evidence, the AO concluded that it is more likely than not that Petitioner’s PTSD can be attributed to his military service, and that his misconduct can reasonably be attributed to Petitioner’s PTSD. MAJORITY CONCLUSION The majority Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d) as intended to be covered by this policy. The majority Board considered the AO from the Navy mental health professional, and carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as Petitioner’s record of service, and desire to upgrade his characterization of service to an honorable. The majority Board considered Petitioner’s contentions that his discharge was caused by mental health; that he was under tremendous stress and distress; that he sought mental health help, but at the time his mental health was beyond help; and that he was handed a death sentence and could not cope with it. The majority Board also considered Petitioner’s statement that he was diagnosed with HIV in his prior enlistment which had been exemplary and without issue, and after his diagnosis, he just lost his mind and began using drugs to cope, and he is currently diagnosed with PTSD due to his diagnosis and Major Depressive Disorder. The majority Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to Petitioner characterization of service given his two NJPs, severity of the drugs used, his admitted drug use, and the fact that he was briefed on the Navy’s policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION That the Petitioner’s request be denied. MINORITY CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the minority Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of full relief. The minority Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d) as intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the minority Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, and does not condone his actions. However, based enclosure (3), Petitioner’s characterization of service should be changed to Honorable. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected to show that on 2 August 1993, he received an Honorable discharged, separation authority to MILPERSMAN 1910-164, reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority, and separation code to JFF. Petitioner shall be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD 214). 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 22 February 2019. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and the recommendation expressed in enclosure (3), this case is being forward for consideration based on the minority Board conclusion and recommendation. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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. Sincerely,