DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 356-19 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 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 MilitaryDischarge 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) Advisory Opinion of 12 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his narrative reason for discharge “Convenience of the Government, Condition not a physical disability, Personality Disorder” be changed to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 May 2020, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial 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 the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional (MHP). 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. On 4 February 1985, Petitioner reenlisted in the Marine Corps after serving over three years of honorable service. On 27 August 1991, a psychiatric discharge summary states that Petitioner’s reassignment to his current duty station caused him a lot of unhappiness, which he has taken out on his family. The report states that Petitioner held an unloaded gun to his wife and himself. He stated that he had no intention of doing any harm to his wife or himself. The gun incident was to test his wife’s love for him. Instead, he frightened her. His condition on discharge improved, and he was competent. It was recommended that he be reassigned to his original command so it will produce a greater harmony between him and his wife and both should attend marriage counseling. c. On 3 September 1991, his commanding officer (CO) forwarded a Relief for the Good of the Service letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps due to Petitioner’s severe personal and mental problems. However, his CO reported that Petitioner made a homicidal and suicidal gesture by threatening his wife as well as himself with a loaded 9mm pistol. He was admitted to a VA hospital and was diagnosed as manifesting suicidal and homicidal ideation. d. On 4 September 1991, Petitioner was diagnosed as exhibiting adult anti-social behavior (spousal abuse) and passive aggressive personality disorder. His prognosis for change was poor and it was recommended that he be expeditiously administratively separated. e. On 5 September 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding allegations of spousal abuse and threats of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On 1 October 1991, the separation authority directed Petitioner’s discharge due to a personalitydisorder. Petitioner’s original service record was incomplete and did not contain any documentation pertaining to his separation from the Marine Corps. Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith. However, based on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), he was honorably discharged due to a personality disorder on 4 October 1991. f. Petitioner contends that “Before I was discharged in 1991, I was sent to a hospital and given medication. I was told if I didn’t sign my discharge papers, I would receive a dishonorable discharge, so, of course, I signed. The whole process from being unjustly accused by my ex-wife, being removed from recruiting duty, and being discharged took a matter of days. It was not until I applied and received health benefits at the VA that I was diagnosed with PTSD in 2017.” g. As a part of the review process, a MHP reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued a favorable AO dated 12 September 2019. The MHP observed that the Petitioner has a diagnosis for PTSD, which has been service-connected and evaluated to be 100% disabling by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The MHP agreed with the VA that Petitioner’s PTSD is attributed to military service. h. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the “ClarifyingGuidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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” memorandum of 25 August 2017. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), theBoard concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. Although he was diagnosed with a personality disorder, the Board concludes that to eliminate the possibilities of invasive questions, his Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be changed to read that the narrative reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority.” The Board voted not to change his reason for discharge to read PTSD. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority.” That the separation authority be corrected to read “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214.” That the separation code be corrected to read “JFF1.” That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 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 3 December 2019. 4. It is certified that 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely,