Docket No: 4232-19 Ref: Signature Date 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, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards 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 (2) Case summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190004232 of 10 Jul 2020 (4) Rebuttal statement and documentation of 7 Aug 2020 (5) Revised Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190004232 of 24 Aug 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board correct his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 28 August 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 his naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, rebuttal documentation from Petitioner, and a revised AO from a qualified 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 Marine Corps on 20 June 2000. On 15 May 2002, he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended on 30 December 2002. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. After the staff judge advocate determined the discharge was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority concurred with the CO and directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 31 January 2003. d. Petitioner contends he suffered a near-death experience while deployed to . His unit was providing security at airport, and one evening, they were fired upon. At the onset, he was off duty and asleep in his tent but was quickly pulled into the foxhole. After the firing ceased and the sun came up, Petitioner contends he noticed several of the incoming shots had passed directly through his tent and the specific place he had been sleeping. Upon return from deployment, he contends the “mental stress of the deployment got to me” and, feeling “hopeless, depressed, anxious, trapped,” and suffering from “nightmares of losing my life,” he “left everything and everyone I knew and ran.” After months of running, Petitioner contends he “finally got up the courage to turn myself in and face the consequences.” Additionally, Petitioner contends he has “battled with the inner demons” for the last 17 years but “despite all this” has a beautiful family with three children and a wonderful life, has been sober for two years, attends and volunteers at church, and has a “great job.” e. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 20 July 2020. The AO states that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence that Petitioner manifested a mental health condition during his military service that would have mitigated his in-service misconduct. The AO was provided to Petitioner on 22 July 2020. On 18 August 2020, rebuttal documentation (see enclosure (4)) was provided by the Petitioner. Along with his rebuttal statement, Petitioner provided medical documentation which discussed his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, and depression diagnoses and linked the diagnoses to Petitioner’s near-death experience while deployed to . The additional information was reviewed, and a revised AO was provided by a qualified mental health provider on 24 August 2020. The AO stated the rebuttal documentation clarified the traumatic event and provided evidence of in-service psychological and behavioral changes which are consistent with those of in-service members who experience trauma and develop PTSD. Although Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain direct evidence of a traumatic event, diagnosis of PTSD, or other mental health condition, the AO concluded Petitioner’s statement detailing the traumatic event was credible. The AO further stated that the “behaviors and psychological symptoms that he described are consistent with someone who had experienced a traumatic event and developed PTSD” and revised the determination to state “there is sufficient indirect evidence that Petitioner exhibited behaviors indicative of PTSD incurred during military service and that his misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD.” CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed his 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, applying liberal consideration, noting the absence of other misconduct, and relying on the revised AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s mental health condition mitigated the misconduct that led to his administrative discharge. In the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.” The Board also determined it was in the interest of justice to assign Petitioner a “RE-1J” reentry code. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421,” and reentry code as “RE-1J.” 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 16 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.