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 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) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 3 Jun 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his other than honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded. Enclosures (1) and (2) applies. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 31 August 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 enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies, post-service medical diagnosis and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified mental health professional. 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 June 1966. The Board noted he deployed to the in August 1968 and served twenty months in country. He was involved in “patrols and ambushes” and was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon, Vietnam Service Medal with one star, Cross of Gallantry with one Palm, and the Campaign Medal. c. During the period from 14 March to 8 November 1968, Petitioner received four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for disrespect in deportment, dereliction in the performance of his duties, failure to obey an order, and sleeping on post. On 6 January 1969, he was convicted by special court-martial of unauthorized absence (UA), wrongfully appropriation of an M-170 vehicle, the property of the U.S. government, two specifications of sleeping on post, two specification of failing to obey orders, and unlawfully striking an unknown person with his fist. On 20 October 1969, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from his appointed place of duty. On 23 January 1970, he was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of four specifications of failing to obey a lawful general order, two specifications of being in an off-limits area, two specifications of being outside a military installation after 2000 hours, being out of uniform, having seven people in a vehicle, operating a jeep in a reckless manner by failing to stop at a stop sign, 13 Days of UA, possession of marijuana, and escaping from lawful custody of armed forces police. On 16 May 1970, he was notified of administrative discharge action due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature. After being afforded his procedural rights, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he receive an undesirable discharge. On 23 May 1970, an administrative discharge board recommended that Petitioner receive an undesirable discharge due to unfitness. On 29 May 1970, a staff judge advocate found Petitioner’s case to be sufficient in law and fact, and on 1 June 1970, the separation authority directed that the Petitioner receive an undesirable discharge. On 17 June 1970, the Petitioner was discharge from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable characterization of service. d. With his application, Petitioner stated that he believes he was not able to control what was going on in his mind at the time due to the things he was put through while in . e. Enclosure (2), states that a review of available service records revealed a Neuropsychiatric evaluation dated 18 November 1969, in which the psychiatrist diagnosed Petitioner with passive-aggressive personality and recommended a transfer to another unit. When this transfer occurred and problems continued, he was psychiatrically re-evaluated on 24 November 1969, and recommended for administrative separation for unsuitability. The remainder of his in-service records provided no evidence for a mental health condition. The Petitioner provided clinical records from Recovery Services, Inc. dated 31 October 2012 and 9 November 2012, which diagnosed the Petitioner with PTSD, Anxiety Disorder (Not Otherwise Specified), Night Terror/Parasomnia, and Cocaine Dependence, in remission. The history stated, “he was in for two tours from 1967 to 1968 and 1968 to 1970.” The reports detailed symptoms consistent with PTSD. Though Petitioner’s in-service records only provide evidence of a diagnosed personality disorder, the majority of his misconduct occurred after his deployment, in which he experienced multiple combat exposures for which he was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and Cross of Gallantry Medal. Post-discharge clinical records provided evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD stemming from his wartime experiences. His behavior during and following his deployment was consistent with those suffering from PTSD and included substance abuse, decreased performance, irritability and fighting, avoidance (UA’s), poor judgement and insight, and reckless behavior. Therefore, at this time, based on the available evidence, there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner’s post-discharge diagnosis of PTSD can be attributed to military service and that the great majority of his in-service misconduct can likely be attributed to his PTSD. f. 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 "Clarifying Guidance 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, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d) intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, and does not condone his actions. However, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, service, in light of enclosure (2), and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “General (under honorable condition).” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 17 June 1970, he received a “General (under honorable conditions)” discharged. Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 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 29 March 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 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.