Docket No: 4104-19  
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 for Correction of Military/Naval              Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI,” of 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,” of 25 August 2017 


Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of 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 a medical discharge.  His case, which was most recently denied by the Board on 16 November 2016, was reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

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 1 August 1985. On 26 September 1986, he received Petitioner reported in March of 1988 and shortly after reporting, he began displaying signs of having difficulty accepting authority from supervisory personnel if he did not agree with their orders.  On 22 February 1989, Petitioner received a command-requested psychiatric evaluation and was not diagnosed with a psychiatric condition but gave the “impression” of a mixed personality disorder with passive-aggressive, anti-social, and avoidance features, and adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.  On 12 April 1989, he received a second NJP for willful disobedience of a superior petty officer, two specifications of assaulting a petty officer, two specifications of disrespect toward a petty officer, willful disobedience of a petty officer, and failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  Subsequently he was notified of pending administrative action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  On 18 April 1989, Petitioner was again psychiatrically evaluated to determine fitness for duty after continued problems, to include, two fights and an inability to get along with co-workers but was not diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  The discharge authority concurred with the CO and directed Petitioner be separated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 17 May 1989, he was discharged with an OTH characterization of service.  

d.  Petitioner contends he was suffering from mental illness while in service.  He specifically contends “it was determined by various psychiatrists that I suffer from schizo bipolor and major depression that date back to my time in the Navy.”  Petitioner further contends his discharge was a “rush to judgment” decision.  

e. Petitioner submitted a letter from explaining that he is currently under the care of its staff and physicians after having been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.  The letter further states Petitioner has a history of multiple inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations and participation in outpatient treatment programs.  

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 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 carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered his contention that he was suffering from mental illness during service.  The Board noted the psychiatric evaluations completed while Petitioner was in service and the post-service letter from detailing his diagnosis and ongoing treatment with psychotropic medications and individual therapy sessions. Applying liberal consideration, the 
Board determined it was in the interest of justice to upgrade Petitioner’s characterization of service to honorable and change his narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority to “secretarial authority.” 

The Board considered Petitioner’s request for a medical discharge but determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant the requested relief.  

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,”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 12 April 2019. 

4.  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. 

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 Regulation, 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. 

4