Docket No: 2786-19  
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 Sep 14   
     (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 Feb 16 
     (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 Aug 17 

Encl:(1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
     (2) Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No:  NR20190002786 of 22 Feb 20 

1.  Pursuant to 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.  

2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 April 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.  The Board also considered the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a 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 and began a period of active duty on 23 August 1999.  A review of his record reveals his chain of command mentioned his “tremendous potential” and gave “high praise for his work ethic and motivation.” It appears he served without disciplinary incident until after returning from a period of temporary additional duty.  On 30 July 2002, Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on three occasions and two instances of disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.  On 11 August 2002, he received a second NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty five separate times.  On 11 September 2002, he received a third NJP for three instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  On 31 October 2002, he received a fourth NJP for willfully disobeying an order from a senior chief petty officer. 

d.  On 20 September 2002, Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate him from the naval service for misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  His record is incomplete in that it does not contain his Commanding Officer’s (CO) recommendation but it appears that after he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s CO recommended administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The discharge authority directed Petitioner be separated with an OTH characterization of service for misconduct.  He was discharged on 21 November 2002. 

e.  Petitioner contends he was diagnosed with a “mental illness” weeks after being discharged.  He further contends that he “got sick while on active duty but did not know what was happening” and “could not explain when asked.” 

f.  As part of the Board’s review, a mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 22 February 2020.  The AO states that Petitioner wasn’t diagnosed with a mental health condition during his military service and he denied mental health symptoms during his in-service evaluation, but it is not unreasonable to consider that he would be reluctant to disclose symptoms of paranoia.  The AO also notes Petitioner’s record contains information consistent with the abrupt decline in performance following a period of satisfactory performance for three years which corresponds to the age range of a typical onset of schizophrenia.  Further, the AO notes Petitioner’s post-service medical documentation consistently states his symptoms began during military service.  It was the AO author’s considered medical opinion that there is evidence to attribute his misconduct, at least in part, to his mental health condition diagnosed post-service. 

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.  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 6 March 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.