DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6929-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190006929 of 3 September 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, 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 upgrade to his characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 September 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 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 Navy on 11 December 1984. On 27 August 1985, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 45-minute unauthorized absence (UA); four instances of failure to obey a lawful order by wearing civilian clothes on a duty day, reporting for duty in the incorrect uniform, failing to change into the correct uniform, and not reporting to the Master-at-Arms when ordered to do so; and wrongfully obtaining long-distance telephone service. On 27 January 1986, Petitioner received a second NJP for leaving his appointed place of duty in the scullery and being disrespectful in deportment by throwing trays, bowls, and cups. On 3 March 1986, he received a third NJP for an UA that lasted less than ten hours. On 12 March 1986 he was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder with further direction to “rule out” intermittent explosive disorder. On 14 March 1986, he received a fourth NJP for violating uniform regulations by cutting his own hair into a “Mohawk style.” Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The discharge authority concurred and directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 7 April 1986. d. Petitioner contends he was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to military sexual trauma (MST) while in service which mitigates the misconduct which led to his discharge and OTH characterization of service. He details a MST while in submarine school by a male second class petty officer. When he finally confided in the Command Master Chief (CMC), Petitioner contends the CMC advised him to “move on” and “get past this” and that forms of “hazing are just part of being in the Navy.” CMC told the Petitioner he would “see what he could do to help” but Petitioner contends he never received any medical assistance, no one was held accountable, and instead, he was “transferred away.” Petitioner further explains, and two advocacy letters from his father and sister corroborate, the impact the MST had on his “entire personality, demeanor, and attitude.” He contends that after the MST, he feared everyone in charge, feared it would happen again, and blamed the Navy for allowing it to happen. Petitioner contends he took his anger out on those around him “because I had no one to turn to…no one that would believe my word over his.” Petitioner also contends two incidents on the USS SEMMES traumatized him and further impacted his resulting PTSD. He continues to seek supporting evidence from the ship’s logs, but he contends that during heavy seas while the ship was in a hurricane, sudden movement of the ship caused him to slide across the deck and into another sailor, severely injuring the sailor. Also, while stationed on the USS , Petitioner contends he feared for his life when the ship was fired upon by a drug boat. 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 3 September 2020. The AO stated that although Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain direct evidence that he suffered an indicative of MST or other psychological trauma, his in-service records do contain direct evidence of psychological or behavioral changes that may have indicated MST/PTSD such as a psychiatric evaluation for “increasing discontent with continued service, behavioral problems, and negative attitude, numerous incidents of misconduct, and disenrolling and requesting change of orders from submarine school.” The AO also stated Petitioner provided credible statements regarding the rape and described behaviors and psychological symptoms of the types that someone who suffered MST would experience. His descriptions are detailed such that they lend credibility to his contention he suffered from PTSD due primarily to MST. The AO concluded there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with victims of MST, as well as early symptoms of PTSD, as a result of his military service and that his misconduct may be mitigated by his experience of MST. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). 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 suffered from MST during military service which mitigated the misconduct which led to his discharge with an OTH characterization of service. 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 also determined it was in the interest of justice to assign Petitioner a “RE-1J” reentry code. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the characterization of service as “honorable”, narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164” and reentry code as “RE-1J.” Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. 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 9 July 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 9/21/2020 Executive Director