Docket No: 5877-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records C onsidering 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 B 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 M 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: NR20190005877 of 2 Oct 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, 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 an upgraded characterization of service. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 9 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 his naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified 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 Marine Corps on 28 June 2004. From 19 July 2005 to 11 February 2006, he was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On 15 February 2006, he tested positive for marijuana use. On 20 April 2006, he was convicted by summary court-martial for wrongful use of marijuana and sentenced to reduction in rate, forfeiture, and confinement. Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. After the staff judge advocate determined the discharge was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority concurred with the CO and directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 19 July 2006. d. Petitioner contends he suffered from undiagnosed combat-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which he treated through self-medication. He further contends his time in service was honorable until the “emergence of undiagnosed mental illness.” 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 2 October 2020. The AO confirms Petitioner’s service-connected post-discharge PTSD diagnosis. The AO states that further evidence such as the marijuana use after the combat deployment, the absence of other misconduct, and the significant drop in Petitioner’s performance and conduct marks following the deployment, provide evidence that lends credibility to Petitioner’s contention. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner incurred PTSD as a result of his military service and that his misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed his 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 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 on the AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s PTSD mitigated the misconduct that led to his administrative discharge. In the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421.” The Board also noted Petitioner’s enlistment contract reflected he enlisted in the regular component on 28 June 2004 but block 12a of his DD Form 214 states he entered active duty on 22 July 2004. The Board requests HQMC review the dates and, if required, make appropriate corrections to Petitioner’s DD Form 214. 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 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.