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 of 3 Sep 14 “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD” (c) PDUSD Memo of 24 Feb 16 “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” (d) PDUSD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “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” (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 w/enls (2) Advisory opinion of 1 Oct 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change to his Other than Honorable (OTH) discharge be upgraded to General (under honorable conditions). Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 October 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 enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified mental health professional, which was previously provided to the Petitioner. 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 20 January 1998. On 29 January 1999, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey an order by failing to turn his K-Bar into the armory, assault by unsheathing his K-Bar and saying, “I am going to kill you” or words to that effect. On 20 April 1999, Petitioner was counseled regarding fighting with fellow Marines. On 11 August 1999, he received NJP for failing to obey an order and assault. On 25 April 2000, a Drug Lab reported that Petitioner had tested positive for marijuana use. c. On 27 April 2000, a Psychiatric Evaluation was requested due to Petitioner’s profound dysphoria, anhedonia, nero-vegetative symptoms and positive urinalysis for marijuana. He was diagnosed with Polysubstance abuse/dependence, depression, ADHD, and fraudulent enlistment. On 2 May 2000, Petitioner was counseled regarding his illegal use of marijuana. Additionally, he was notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to drug abuse. After being afforded his procedural rights, he elected to waive his right to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 4 May 2000, a Clinical Psychologist evaluation indicated drug abuse and alcohol dependence. d. On 18 May 2000, Petitioner received NJP for wrongful use of marijuana. On 5 June 2000, he refused treatment for alcohol and substance abuse. On 6 June 2000, his case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 26 July 2000, a Staff Judge Advocate determined that Petitioner’s case was sufficient in law and fact. On 31 July 2000, the separation authority directed that Petitioner receive an OTH discharge due to drug abuse. On 7 August 2000, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. e. With his application, Petitioner stated that he, “had fallen on adverse times” during his deployment to to include being placed on suicide watch, though he denies voicing suicidal ideation. He reported his stress was increased when he was “hazed” by fellow Marines and superiors resulting in “bad judgment” in self-medicating with marijuana. He attributed his drug abuse misconduct to self-medicating his behaviors due to undiagnosed PTSD and offered as mitigation, “no mental evaluation was done prior to my discharge.” f. Enclosure (2), states Petitioner’s contention of in-service traumatic exposures leading to undiagnosed PTSD is supported by his receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon, diagnosis of an Unspecified Depressive Disorder, increased substance abuse with multiple alcohol-related incidents of misconduct, and the documented presence of psychological symptoms and behavioral changes meeting diagnostic criteria for a Depressive Disorder. Therefore, it was opined that the preponderance of available objective evidence does support the Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from PTSD attributable to his military service, and that the majority of his in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD, even though one NJP occurred prior to his deployment. g. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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" memorandum of 25 August 2017. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e) intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct, and does not condone his actions. However, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, in light of enclosure (2), and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “General (under honorable conditions).” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) showing that on 7 August 2000, Petitioner’s received a “General (under honorable conditions)” discharge. That no further action be granted. A copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be 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 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.