Docket No: 0047-19 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) Advisory Opinion of 3 Sep 9 (3) Department of Veterans Affairs ltr of 16 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that the Board correct her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2019, 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 Navy mental health provider and Petitioner’s rebuttal thereto. 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 22 May 1996 at the age of xx. On 21 August 1997, she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from her appointed place of duty and disrespect towards a petty officer. On 9 October 1997, she received a second NJP for UA. On 29 January 1998, she received a third NJP for a three-hour UA. On 7 June 1998, she received a fourth NJP for violating a lawful regulation and assault and battery. Petitioner’s record is incomplete in that it does not contain the documents pertaining to her administrative discharge but, based on her DD Form 214, it appears that after being afforded all of her procedural rights, the discharge authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. She was discharged with a GEN characterization of service on 6 July 1998. d. Petitioner contends that her discharge is inequitable because it was based on a physical altercation between herself and a superior. Specifically, Petitioner contends she became involved in an intimate relationship with a male crew member who was also one of her superiors. She further contends that, as a result of her relationship, the ship environment became stressful, her mental status changed, and she found herself continuously being reprimanded for insubordination. Petitioner further contends that her administrative separation was due to a domestic violence situation. Specifically, per medical notes in Petitioner’s record, she was on the signal bridge having a disagreement with the male crew member/boyfriend which turned violent. According to Petitioner, the male crew member attempted to strangle Petitioner, put her in a headlock on the deck of the signal bridge, and attempted to drag her onto the weather deck. Per the medical notes, the commotion alerted the bridge watchstanders and they broke up the altercation. Petitioner further contends she currently attends therapy and takes medication to deal with her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which resulted from the violent relationship with her superior. e. As part of the Board’s review, a Navy mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided the 3 September 2019 AO to the Board. The AO concluded Petitioner has a diagnosis of PTSD that is attributed to her military service. The AO further notes her misconduct post-dates her arrival onboard the ship and the initiation of an intimate relationship with a military superior. Additionally, the AO states “it is possible that UA and disrespect could be attributed to behavioral indicators of stress maintaining an intimate relationship that ultimately becomes violent.” The AO further states that post-service treatment records describing the specific link between Petitioner’s misconduct and her mental health concerns would be needed to render a comprehensive medical opinion. The AO was forwarded to Petitioner for review and comment on 5 September 2019. The rebuttal statement submitted by Petitioner on 16 September 2019 was provided to the Board for review. The rebuttal documentation provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs Grand Prairie Outpatient Mental Health Clinic detailed Petitioner’s abusive relationship with her superior/boyfriend and the resultant mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed her 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 and relying upon Petitioner’s diagnosed mental health condition, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s mental health condition mitigated her misconduct. The Board considered the domestic violence she suffered at the hands of her boyfriend, who was her superior on the ship, as detailed in enclosure (3). After consideration of all the factors, the Board determined the misconduct that led to her discharge was mitigated by her mental health condition and warranted an upgraded characterization of service and corresponding changes to her narrative reason for separation, code and authority. 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 20 November 2018. 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 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.