Docket No: 5488-19 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 (e) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190005488 of 16 Sep 2020 (4) Rebuttal to the Advisory Opinion 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 a change to his characterization of service and reentry code. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 30 October 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider and Petitioner’s AO rebuttal package. 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 15 March 2001. On 18 July 2001, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence of several hours, wrongfully consuming alcohol while underage, and failure to obey a lawful order by consuming alcohol during the eight-hour commencement of a duty day. On 17 August 2001, Petitioner refused treatment for substance abuse. On 22 August 2001, he received a second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order by not submitting a special request chit to visit , , wrongfully consuming alcohol while underage, and making a false official statement. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct and by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure. After Petitioner waived his procedural rights and elected to submit a statement, the commanding officer (CO) recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct and alcohol rehabilitation failure with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The discharge authority concurred with the CO’s recommendation and directed Petitioner’s discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct with an OTH characterization of service. On 11 September 2001, Petitioner was discharged by reason of misconduct and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. d. Petitioner contends he suffered from undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and wasn’t able to understand or comprehend mentally how his alcohol abuse and lack of judgment would affect him personally and in the military. Specifically, he contends he witnessed the death of a fellow recruit in boot camp. He further contends he could have been a tremendous asset given help and the right direction but has learned from his mistakes. Lastly, Petitioner requests the Board consider his post-service record. Specifically, he provided details regarding his employment with the state for nearly 11 years, his federal government work at a military cemetery where he honorably buried hundreds of veterans, and his current work with the local school district. Petitioner also provided three advocacy letters from prior employers and his spouse, and copies of the letters he mailed home to his mother during bootcamp which memorialize the impact the recruit’s death had on him. 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 16 September 2020. The AO stated his in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/ behavioral changes that may have indicated PTSD. Further, the AO stated Petitioner’s post-discharge diagnoses, including PTSD, were based on evaluations from a patient-presented history fully 18 years after his discharge. In-service records contemporary to his military service did not provide evidence of behavioral changes or psychological symptoms indicative of PTSD or other diagnosable mental health conditions, other than his alcohol abuse and misconduct. The AO opines that only one post-discharge mental health evaluator commented on a possible link between Petitioner’s misconduct and his reported traumatic incident. The AO concluded there is insufficient objective evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors or psychological symptoms indicative of PTSD or other mental health disorders during his military service or that his misconduct may be mitigated by a mental health condition. See enclosure (3). f. In rebuttal to the AO, Petitioner contends the slightly incorrect information and neglect in providing complete facts, “makes me feel just as I did at discharge, I am just a number…” Specifically, he contends the AO failed to consider the letters he sent his mother while in boot camp, which memorialized his mental state after the death of his fellow recruit. Petitioner reiterates the post-discharge evaluations and medical documentation he has provided. He specifically details the symptoms he stated he was experiencing while in service and points to supporting documentation in the record. He also submitted a copy of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service report detailing the death of his fellow recruit while in boot camp as supporting documentation of the traumatic event that led to his PTSD. See enclosure (4). 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 (e). Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. 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 carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered each of Petitioner’s contentions. Applying liberal consideration, the Board determined Petitioner’s misconduct was minor and did not warrant an OTH characterization of service. The Board concluded that an uncharacterized entry level separation was appropriate and authorized in Petitioner’s situation since he had been in the service less than 180 days. However, the Board concluded Petitioner’s misconduct, even if mitigated after the traumatic incident at boot camp, warranted an RE-4 reentry code and denied Petitioner’s request to change his reentry code to allow for reenlistment. Lastly, Petitioner requested the Board “consider a Chapter 11 separation failure to adapt” based on a recommendation from his supervisor at the Department of Veterans Affairs. There was insufficient information provided regarding this request or the reference that explains a “Chapter 11 separation.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his character of service, block 24, as “uncharacterized (entry level separation).” 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 29 May 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 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.