Docket No: 6177-19 
               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 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) USD memo of 25 Jul 18, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards 
                for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency 
                Determinations” 
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149  
           (2) Record of Unauthorized Absences dtd 7 Dec 10 
           (3) Record of Unauthorized Absences dtd 10 Dec 10 
           (4) Record of Unauthorized Absences dtd 4 Feb 11 
           (5) Record of Unauthorized Absences dtd 15 Mar 11 
           (6) Memorandum, Subj: [Petitioner]; Recommendation for Administrative Separation, dtd 24 Feb 11CO, TPU ltr of 24 Feb 11 
           (7) NAVPERS 1910/31, Administrative Separation Processing Notice – Administrative Board Procedure, dtd 22 Feb 11 
           (8) DD Form 214, 8 Mar 11 
           (9) NDRB decision ltr, dtd 3 Jun 13  
           (10) DD Form 149, dtd 16 Sep 17 
           (11) BCNR Docket No. 9628-17, 19 Jun 18 
           (12) DD Form 214, 30 Aug 18   
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting an upgrade of her characterization of service to honorable.  Petitioner’s characterization of service was previously upgraded from other than honorable (OTH) to general (under honorable conditions) pursuant to the Board’s recommendations on 19 June 2018.  See enclosure (11).  Her present reconsideration request was reviewed in accordance with the guidance provided by reference (b).conditions) pursuant to the Board’s recommendations on 19 June 2018.  See enclosure (11).  Her present reconsideration request was reviewed in accordance with the guidance provided by reference (b).
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 2 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 Petitioner’s naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies, to include references (b) through (e).  
 
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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 June 2009.     
 
    c.  Petitioner’s record reflects unauthorized absences for the following dates:  10 November 2010 to 17 November 2010; 24 November 2010 to 6 December 2010; 7 December 2010 to 18 January 2011; and 23 February 2011 to 8 March 2011.  On 27 January 2011, Petitioner tested positive for a controlled substance during a urinalysis.  See enclosures (2) through (6). 
 
     d.  On 22 February 2011, Petitioner was notified that she was being recommended for administrative discharge processing by reason of misconduct as evidenced by drug abuse and commission of a serious offense.  See enclosure (7).  She did not consult with counsel and waived her right to an administrative discharge board.  On 24 February 2011, her commanding officer recommended that she be discharged with an OTH characterization of service.  See enclosure (6).  On 8 March 2011, the separation authority directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH characterization of service, and on 8 March 2011 she was so discharged.  See enclosure (8). 
 
     e.  In 2013, Petitioner applied to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for an upgrade to her service characterization citing mental health issues developed in-service as the reason for her misconduct.  The NDRB determined Petitioner’s discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted.  See enclosure (9). 
 
     f.  The Board previously reviewed a request from Petitioner, dated 16 September 2017, to upgrade her characterization of service.  See enclosure (10).  On 19 June 2018, the Board found Petitioner’s contention of harassment to be legitimate and concluded that her misconduct was mitigated by her mental health conditions as exacerbated by the harassment.  Accordingly, the Board directed that her characterization of service be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions), but determined an upgrade to honorable was not warranted due to the nature of her misconduct.  See enclosure (11).   A new DD Form 214 was issued to Petitioner on 30 August 2018 which reflected her characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions), and the narrative reason for her discharge as “Secretarial Authority.”  See enclosure (12). 
 
      g.  On 10 June 2019, Petitioner submitted enclosure (1) requesting reconsideration of the Board’s 19 June 2018 decision not to upgrade her characterization of service to honorable.   Petitioner contends she served honorably, but was “frequently harassed by [her] shipmates because of [her] sexuality, and the stress caused [her] to go AWOL and self-medicate with marijuana.”  She did not submit any supporting documentation with enclosure (1). 
 
      h.  As part of the Board’s previous review of Petitioner’s case, an advisory opinion (AO) was provided by a certified forensic psychiatrist.  The AO noted that Petitioner’s personnel file contained an original psychiatric note indicating that she had been diagnosed and treated for Bipolar Disorder and Anxiety Disorder which, at that time, Petitioner had characterized as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The AO further opined that at least some of Petitioner’s misconduct could potentially be attributed to avoidance behavior frequently seen in response to a traumatic experience, such as sexual harassment.  Further, the AO noted that marijuana use is a common method used to self-medicate for symptoms of Anxiety and Bipolar Disorders.  Accordingly, the AO found that Petitioner’s in-service diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder and Anxiety Disorder can be attributed to her military service, and that her misconduct can be attributed to these mental health conditions.   
     
      i.  In accordance with references (b) through (d), the Board applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s contentions she was the victim of sexual harassment while she was in the Navy, that this harassment exacerbated the impact of her Bipolar and Anxiety Disorders (which she characterized as PTSD), and that her misconduct may be mitigated by these exacerbated conditions.  In addition to applying the guidance of references (b) through (d) to its consideration of Petitioner’s mental health conditions and the impact that they may have had upon his conduct, the Board also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the interests of justice warrants relief in accordance with the guidance of reference (e).  In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, Petitioner’s assertion that she served honorably in the Navy; that she frequently was sexually harassment by her shipmates; that this harassment exacerbated her mental health conditions; and her assertion that, but for this harassment, she would not have engaged in the misconduct that resulted in her discharge. 
  
MAJORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
In reviewing the Petitioner’s application in light of the guidance provided by references (b) through (e), the Majority of the Board determined that the upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service to general (under honorable condition) was insufficient to satisfy the interests of judgment.  The Majority found that Petitioner’s misconduct was fully mitigated by her mental health conditions, especially as exacerbated by the sexual harassment that she suffered.  Applying liberal consideration to this assessment, and considering the totality of the circumstances, the Majority believed that the interests of justice demand the upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service to honorable.   
  
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends the following corrective actions be taken on Petitioner’s naval service record: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that she was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. 
 
That no further corrective action be taken.  
 
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 18 June 2019. 
 
MINORITY CONCLUSION: 
 
The Minority of the Board found no error or injustice with the previous Board determination that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).  In reaching this determination, the Minority noted that Petitioner submitted no material that was not previously considered by the Board.  While it did apply the liberal consideration standard of references (b) through (d), and considered the totality of the circumstances in accordance with reference (e), to its review, in the absence of any material not already considered the Minority simply found no injustice with the Board’s previous determination.  Accordingly, the Minority determined that no further corrective action is warranted.   
 
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the foregoing, the Minority recommends that no corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record. 
 
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.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.  
 
                                                              12/18/2020