DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 4054-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER XXX-XX-, USMC 

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,” 3 September 2014 
     (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,” 24 February 2016 
     (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,” 25 August 2017 
     (e) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
(2) Chronological Record of Service 
(3) Nonjudicial Punishment, dtd 7 Jun 83 
(4) USMC,  Memo, subj: CONGRINT; case of [Petitioner], dtd 21 Oct 83 
(5) NAVMC 118, Offenses and Punishment Page (First UA) 
(6) NAVMC 118, Offenses and Punishment Page (Second UA)  
(7) FMF Memo, subj: Request for Separation in Lieu 
    of Trial by Court-Martial, dtd 27 August 84  
(8) FMF Memo, subj: Request for Separation in Lieu 
(9) DD Form 214 
(10) Advisory Opinion, dtd 29 Jun 20 


1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his characterization of service be upgrade to honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or “retired,” because he was suffering from an untreated mental disorder at the time of his 
discharge.  

2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 September 2020, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of the naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies, to include references (b) – (e). 

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 submitted in a timely manner, the statute of limitations was waived in accordance with references (b) – (d). 

c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 2 November 1982.1 See enclosure (2) 

d.  On 13 June 1983, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 25 July 1983, Petitioner received NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, and breaking restriction, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. See enclosure (3). 

e.  On 18 August 1983, Petitioner was diagnosed with a personality disorder with passive/aggressive features with multiple substance (drug) abuse.  Another psychiatric evaluation conducted on 4 October 1983 diagnosed Petitioner with substance abuse.  See enclosure (4). 

f.  Petitioner was UA from 6 September 1983 until he returned on 22 September 1983.  See enclosure (5).  He was UA again from 7 October 1983 until he was apprehended by civilian authorities on 22 August 1984.  See enclosure (6). 

g.  Court-martial charges were subsequently preferred against Petitioner for the UA offenses discussed in paragraph 3f above.  By memorandum dated 27 August 1984, Petitioner requested separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this memorandum, he acknowledged that his service would be characterized as other than honorable (OTH) if his request was approved.  See enclosure (7).  

h.  By memorandum dated 31 August 1984, the separation authority approved Petitioner’s request and directed that he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under OTH conditions. See enclosure (8).  

i.  Petitioner was discharged under OTH conditions on 5 September 1984.  His separation code was “KFS1” and his reenlistment code was “RE-4.”  See enclosure (9). 


-1 Petitioner’s DD Form 214, listinghis active duty start date as 8 July 1983, appears to be in error. It appears that the start date Petitioner’s period of active duty may have been adjusted to account for his lost time. 


In February 2019, Petitioner was diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center with schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  This evaluation speculated that “[i]t is possible that the tortuous behavior [Petitioner] suffered while in the Marines triggered an underlying psychotic vulnerability and caused him to develop the problems of schizoaffective disorder.” 

h.  As part of the Board’s review process, Petitioner’s application and medical records were reviewed by a qualified mental health professional, who provided the Board with an advisory opinion (AO).  This AO found that Petitioner’s mental health evaluation and diagnosis with PTSD, made 34 years after Petitioner’s discharge, was “speculative at best” in its comment that Petitioner’s schizoaffective disorder arose from “an underlying psychotic vulnerability triggered by behavior he suffered while in the Marines.”  The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence that Petitioner’s post-discharge conditions of PTSD and Schizoaffective Disorder can be attributed to his military service, or that Petitioner’s in-service misconduct can be attributed to a mental health condition.  See enclosure (9).  

CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration of Petitioner’s application and the evidence of record, the Board determined that relief was warranted in Petitioner’s case. 

Given Petitioner’s diagnosis with schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, the Board reviewed Petitioner’s application in accordance with theguidance of references (b) – (d).  Accordingly, the Board applied liberal consideration to the Petitioner’s assertion of an undiagnosed mental health condition and the impact that it may have had upon his conduct.  In this regard, the Board disagreed with the AO’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that Petitioner’s post-discharge conditions of PTSD and schizoaffective disorder can be attributed to his military service.  The Board found Petitioner’s description of the events surrounding his periods ofUA to be credible.  Accordingly, the Board found this explanation, combined with Petitioner’s post-service diagnosis with schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, to provide sufficient evidence of an in-service mental health condition that mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct.  

In addition to applying liberal consideration to its review of Petitioner’s case in accordance with references (b) – (d), the Board also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interest of justice in accordance with reference (e).  In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, that Petitioner was not diagnosed or treated for any mental health conditions that may have adversely affected his conduct and judgment; that Petitioner had an undiagnosed and untreated medical condition (i.e., mononucleosis) that adversely affected his duty performance and therefore adversely affected his treatment in the service; that Petitioner experienced traumatic events while in the Marine Corps, to include an accident in the vehicle transporting him to medical care and his treatment; that Petitioner’s chain of command allegedly subjected Petitioner to boxing “smokers” to make an example of him; Petitioner’s relative youth at the time of his misconduct; and the passage of time since 


Petitioner’s discharge.  Based upon this review, and incorporating the liberal consideration discussed above, the Board determined that an upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions) is warranted in the interest of justice.  

RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:  That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting a General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. That Petitioner’s new DD Form 214 be corrected to indicate service from 2 November 1982 to 5 September 1984. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 

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.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 


ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: 

Board Recommendation Approved (Upgrade to General)