Docket No: 697-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy 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 MilitaryDischarge 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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 26 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his general characterization of service be upgraded to honorable. Enclosures (1) and (2) 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 May 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 the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional. 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. On 9 November 1966, Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy after serving over three years of honorable service. On 3 May 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 25 days of unauthorized absence (UA). On 1 July 1968, he was convicted by summary court-martial of UA for 33 days and breaking restriction. On 6 August 1968, Petitioner received his second NJP for being absent from his appointed place of duty on four occasions, one day of UA, and failure to obey a lawful order. Additionally, he was advised that his conduct and performance were under close observation and the command was seriously considering recommending that he be discharged from the Navy with an undesirable discharge. On 16 June 1969, a psychiatrist recommended that Petitioner receive an expedited separation from the Navy due to an emotionally unstable personality disorder. On 19 June 1969, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial of two periods of UA totaling 205 days. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of pay. On 11 July 1969, he was notified that he was being recommended for separation for unfitness due his frequent involvement with military authorities. After being afforded his procedural rights, he waived his right to request to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. On 15 July 1969, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that he receive an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 18 July 1969, the separation authority directed that Petitioner be discharged from the Navy with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 6 August 1969, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable characterization of service. However, on 5 October 1977, a Special Discharge Review Board changed his characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). c. Petitioner contends that he should have gotten a medical discharge, however, his lawyer did not say anything about the psychiatrist’s report, and instead of applying for a medical discharge, the lawyer said, “[he] was getting what [he] got.” Petitioner submitted a statement describing the many traumatic incidents he witnessed during his deployment to and the effects on him upon his return. Petitioner requests a discharge that is recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs. d. As part of the review process, a BCNR Mental Health Professional (MHP), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued a favorable AO dated 26 September 2019. The MHP observed that Petitioner experienced symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from his deployment to. The MHP noted that all of Petitioner’s misconduct occurred after he returned from his deployment to . The MHP concluded that Petitioner’s misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition incurred during his military service. (Enclosure 2) e. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "ClarifyingGuidance 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, Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). The Board noted Petitioner’s misconduct and does not condone his actions. However, based on his overall record of service, to include his in-service personality disorder diagnosis, Vietnam service, the fact that all of his misconduct follows his deployment to Vietnam, and that he had served almost four years of active duty service without major incident, and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, it is reasonable that his mental health symptoms, which were reported in-service, could be attributed to PTSD symptoms, rather than problematic personality traits. The Board concluded that Petitioner should be granted relief by changing his characterization of service to “Honorable.” RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record is corrected to show that on 6 August 1969, he received an Honorable discharge. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 6 August 1969, the separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” Petitioner’s separation code be changed to read “JFF.” Petitioner’s narrative reason for discharge be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 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 is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 19 December 2018. 4. It is certified that 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.