DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2677-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards 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 (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: NR20190002677 of 12 Apr 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board correct his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect his characterization of service as honorable (HON), or in the alternative, grant a medical discharge or upgrade his characterization to general, under honorable conditions (GEN). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18 June 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, 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 7 July 1982 at the age of 17. On 18 June 1983, he referred himself to medical because he was “losing his temper too much.” On 7 October 1983, he was again evaluated by medical and diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. On 13 October 1983, he was evaluated by medical after reporting suicidal thoughts and diagnosed with personality disorder/immature personality. Petitioner was referred to medical by his division officer on 6 December 1983 after threatening to jump overboard twice in three days. On 9 December 1983, medical diagnosed him with immature personality and situational anxiety. On 10 December 1983, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect towards a Marine guard and a commissioned officer and assault upon his superior petty officer. On 5 January 1984, Petitioner jumped off the hangar deck of the USS in an attempt to end his life. On the same day, he received NJP for willfully violating a lawful regulation by intentionally jumping overboard and violating a lawful written order issued by the Operations Officer by not having sufficient funds to return from leave. d. Petitioner’s record is incomplete in that it does not contain the notification that the command was contemplating administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After Petitioner waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct. On 19 January 1984, Petitioner was discharged with an OTH characterization of service. e. Petitioner contends his discharge was unjust because he was discharged for a suicide attempt directly related to his mental health conditions which included Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder. He explains the harassment he endured, the symptoms he was experiencing, and his suicide attempt, in depth, in his personal affidavit. Petitioner further contends his mental health conditions existed during service which is evidenced by his in-service medical records and post-discharge diagnostic letter. Petitioner contends his mental health conditions excuse and mitigate his discharge because the misconduct was the direct result of his mental health condition. He states his misconduct is not tangentially related to mental illness; the misconduct was the suicide attempt. Additionally, Petitioner contends his mental health condition outweighs the misconduct. Lastly, he contends his discharge is inequitable because current discharge policies would have caused the command to refer him to the Disability Evaluation System where, if the mental health condition contributed to his misconduct, he would likely have received a medical or GEN discharge. f. Petitioner submitted a psychological assessment dated 28 November 2018 in support of his contentions. The medical professional stated she had been treating Petitioner since 1996 when she diagnosed him with bipolar disorder. She added PTSD to his diagnosis in 2010. From her knowledge of Petitioner’s medical and psychiatric history, the medical professional determined the hazing Petitioner endured brought on the bipolar disorder which “affected his mental condition, initialized his impulsivity, and exaggerated his sense of hopelessness.” She determined the suicide attempt was the result of the symptoms of bipolar disorder and the developing PTSD.” g. As part of the Board’s review, a Navy mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided the 12 April 2020 AO. The AO stated his in-service medical record provides evidence of multiple medical and psychiatric clinical evaluations for increasing anxiety and depressive symptoms prior to his disciplinary events. The AO further stated it is not unusual for stress to bring on the initial presentations of bipolar disorder which typically manifests in early adulthood and presents with affective and anxiety symptoms before the first manic episode. The AO explained that the hazing Petitioner experienced, which resulted in his diagnosis of PTSD, is consistent with the type of stress and trauma that could contribute to both the onset of bipolar disorder and PTSD. Based on the available evidence, the AO determined there was sufficient evidence that it is “more likely than not” that Petitioner’s diagnosis of PTSD and bipolar disorder is attributable to military service and his misconduct, especially the suicide attempt, is attributable to his mental health conditions. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants 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 reachingfair 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, applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s mental health conditions are attributable to his military service and excused/mitigated his misconduct, especially his suicide attempt. In the interest of justice, the Board determined Petitioner’s characterization of service warranted upgrading to honorable. 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 “honorable.” 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 28 February 2019. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a trueand 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.