DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 0517-19 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, MLCS Docket No:NR20190000517 of 16 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, 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 his discharge status and entry code as “under honorable conditions.” 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 31 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 naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a 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 Navy and started a period of active service on 24 January 2000. On 27 October 2002, he received non-judicial punishment for wrongful use of marijuana. Subsequently, he was notified of an administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After he waived his procedural rights, his commanding officer recommended that he be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that he be discharged by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse with an OTH characterization of service. On 22 November 2002, he was so discharged. d. Petitioner contends his discharge is inequitable because he was suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness at the time of his misconduct. Specifically, he contends he acquired Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during his service in the Navy. Petitioner contends that prior to 11 September 2001, he was an “up and coming super sailor” and “expected to excel far above and beyond” with evaluations that reflected his motivation, focus, and hard work. He further contends that “9/11 changed the course of not only my career but my life as well.” In the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim Petitioner provided as supporting evidence, he also contends he was deployed on USS in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and lost a shipmate to a fall overboard in November 2001. Petitioner contends he suffered from anxiety, vivid nightmares, and insomnia, and since the mental condition went undiagnosed, he did not receive help or support but instead resorted to other means to help alleviate the symptoms. e. As part of the Board’s review, a mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 16 September 2019. The AO concluded Petitioner has a diagnosis of PTSD that is related to his military service and “there is some evidence to attribute his misconduct to PTSD incurred during military service.” Specifically, the AO notes “it is possible that his marijuana use could have been self-medicating behavior for symptoms of PTSD” but complete VA medical records describing his diagnosis and history of mental health symptoms are required for a comprehensive opinion. The AO was forwarded to Petitioner for review and comment on 17 September 2019, and he was given 30 days in which to submit a response. When he did not provide a response, his case was submitted to the Board for consideration. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes 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 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 his misconduct. The Board considered the contention Petitioner used marijuana, a common coping device for individuals suffering from mental health conditions, to alleviate his PTSD symptoms. After consideration of all the factors, the Board determined the misconduct that led to his discharge was mitigated by his mental health condition and warranted an upgraded characterization of service and corresponding changes to his separation reason, code and authority but determined his requested change to his “entry code” was not warranted. 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 “general, under honorable conditions,” 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 13 December 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. 11/15/2019