Docket No: 6317-19 
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 
        (f)  MARADMIN 328/10 
     
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
       (2) Case summary 
       (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No:  NR20190006317 of 12 Oct 2020 
    
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to reflect an honorable character of service and “secretarial authority” as the narrative reason for separation, along with the corresponding change to his separation code. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 20 November 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
  
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 on 18 February 2009.  On 16 August 2010, he was convicted by a civilian court of first degree trespassing and sentenced to 36 months unsupervised probation.  On 2 September 2010, Petitioner received counseling and a retention warning due to his civilian conviction.  On 11 September 2010, he received a citation from civilian authorities for wrongfully possessing a beer in public while under the age of 21 and drunken operation of a vehicle while alcohol remained in his body from previous consumption.   
 
 c.  On 17 December 2010, charges for the September misconduct were referred to special court-martial (SPCM).  Petitioner entered a pre-trial agreement in which he agreed to voluntarily plead guilty to drunken driving at nonjudicial punishment (NJP) in exchange for the withdrawal of all charges and specifications from the pending SPCM.  He further agreed to waive his right to an administrative discharge board.  A review of the record did not reveal documentation indicating Petitioner’s September misconduct was adjudicated by NJP. 
 
 d.  On 17 February 2011, Petitioner was counseled for failure to obey an order regarding the operation of a highway motorcycle, failure to obey an order while sick-in-quarters, and failure to obey an order by driving while taking prescription medication.   
 
 e.  On 28 February 2011, Petitioner was counseled for violating the state statutes on underage possession of alcohol and drunken driving.  Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 package 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 17 March 2011. 
   
 f.  Petitioner contends his OTH characterization of service is inequitable.  Specifically, he contends the following: 
 
  1) Petitioner suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time of his misconduct, and his misconduct was subsequently a direct product of his undiagnosed PTSD.   
 
  2) Petitioner’s thoroughly documented medical conditions should have led to a medical discharge.  Specifically, long before he began to suffer PTSD symptoms, his back condition should have been enough to medically discharge him from service or put him on the Temporary Disability Retirement List. 
  
  3) The discharge authority did not conduct a required mental health examination prior to Petitioner’s involuntary administrative separation.   
 
  4) Petitioner’s prescription medications hindered his capacity to understand the severity of his actions around the time of his scheduled trial by court-martial.  Specifically, he was medicated with several reality altering prescriptions after having multiple back surgeries, being severely hazed, and being both physically and sexually violated.  During this time he was also suffering from undiagnosed PTSD and self-medicating with alcohol on a daily basis.  Petitioner contends he severely lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of the decisions he was making or sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer.   
 
 g.  Petitioner submitted two advocacy letters describing his post-service character.    
 
  h.  As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 12 October 2020.  The AO states his in-service records do not contain a diagnosis of PTSD but they do contain direct evidence that he experienced psychological/behavioral changes that may have indicated the onset of PTSD.  The AO confirms that Petitioner provided evidence of being diagnosed with PTSD and Depressive Disorder shortly after his discharge.  Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes there is sufficient indirect evidence that Petitioner likely incurred PTSD during his military service and that his misconduct may be attributable to his PTSD. 
 
CONCLUSION: 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial 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 but the repeated misconduct did not warrant the requested upgrade to honorable.  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.”  
 
The Board, having concluded that PTSD mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct but that the misconduct did not warrant a full upgrade to honorable, did not make determinations regarding Petitioner’s additional contentions.   
 
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 “general, under honorable conditions,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421.”       
 
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 20 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.