From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER       , USN, XXX-XX-XXX  
         

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
     (b) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of      Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018. 
 
Encl: DD Form 149 with attachments 
  
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his the characterization of his service be upgraded from other than honorable to honorable.   
 
2.  The Board, consisting of    ,    , and    , reviewed the Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 August 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosure, relevant portions of the Petitioner’s naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
3.  The Board, having reviewed all of the facts of record pertaining to the 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.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 13 October 1982.   
 
 c.  On 15 August 1983, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for willful disobedience of a petty officer in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and a four-day unauthorized absence (UA) in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  On 1 September 1983, the Petitioner again received NJP for dereliction of duty for sunbathing during working hours in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  On 4 March 1984, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of UA totally approximately 90 days in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, and for disrespect to a chief petty officer in violation of Article 91, UCMJ.   
 
 d.  On 19 April 1984, Petitioner was separated under other than honor conditions for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). 
 
 e.  Petitioner asserts that his requested discharge upgrade is appropriate because he has a life-long learning disability which affects his perceptional reasoning and thought process, which in turn adversely affected his ability to conform to military life.  In support of his petitioner, Petitioner provided a letter from a psychologist, dated 22 January 1991 and addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), supporting Petitioner’s claimed perceptional reasoning handicap.  In this letter, the psychologist opined that Petitioner “never should have been allowed to enlist in military service” and that it “does not appear to be [Petitioner’s] fault that he could not adjust to military life” due to his impaired abilities. 
 
 f.  The Board noted that the Petitioner asserted in his application for relief that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the stress induced from his inability to conform to military life.  When the Board requested documentation to support his claim of PTSD by letter dated 18 July 2019, the Petitioner provided only the letter from the psychologist referenced above which did not support such a diagnosis.  It did, however, support the possibility that Petitioner suffered from a Generalized Anxiety Disorder with underlying personality problems.  As a result, the Board found no evidence to support the Petitioner’s claim of PTSD, but considered the Petitioner’s application in light of this potential diagnosis. 
 
 g.  In addition to reviewing the Petitioner’s application for relief for error or injustice, the Board also applied the guidance provided in reference (b) to determine whether equitable relief was appropriate.  In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, the evidence of a learning disorder that adversely impacted the Petitioner’s ability to adapt to military life, the opinion of the psychologist that Petitioner never should have been allowed to enlist in the military and that Petitioner’s inability to adapt to military life was beyond his control, that Petitioner may suffer from an anxiety disorder that may have been aggravated by the challenges inherent in military service, and the apparent difficulty that the Petitioner has experienced in maintaining employment since his separation from the Navy.   
 
h.  Upon careful review and consideration of all of the evidence of record, considered in light of the guidance provided by reference (b), the Board found the equitable relief recommended below to be appropriate in this case.  The Board did not recommend granting the full relief requested of an upgrade to an honorable discharge, as it found no error or injustice in the Petitioner’s discharge for misconduct, and such discharges on such a basis rarely warrant an honorable characterization of service.  
  
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above findings, the Board directs the following partial corrective action: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his characterization of service was general (under honorable conditions); 
 
That no further corrective action be granted; 
 
That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record; and 
 
That, upon request, the VA is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 11 June 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.