DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7202-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to change his narrative reason for separation to disability, upgrade his characterization of service to General, and reinstate him to paygrade E4. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 December 2019 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 naval 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 entered active duty with the Navy in March 1984. After completing his initial training pipeline, he reported to and performed without incident until April 1987. That month, Petitioner ingested over the counter medication in a suicide gesture and was admitted to the naval hospital for treatment. He was eventually diagnosed with malingering and severe mixed personality disorder based, in part, on his stated desire to be discharged from the Navy due to his job dissatisfaction. After returning to duty, Petitioner was punished with non­judicial punishment on 28 May 1987 for missing ships movement while in an authorized absence status. He expressed suicidal ideations and was readmitted to the naval hospital where he was again diagnosed with malingering and mixed personality disorder and recommended for administrative separation. Upon his release from treatment, Petitioner was convicted by a summary court-martial for unauthorized absence and breaking restriction. He was notified of administrative separation processing on 22 July 1987 where he acknowledged his rights. Petitioner was medically cleared for discharge on 3 August 1987 and discharged for his misconduct on 17 August 1987 with an Other than Honorable characterization of service. c. Post-discharge, Petitioner was treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He provided expert medical opinions documenting his PTSD and its existence while he was on active duty. The opinions also disagreed with the malingering diagnoses and course of treatment provided to Petitioner in 1987. Petitioner also provided multiple character statements that documents his mental health condition and post-discharge good character. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board determined that sufficient mitigation exists to upgrade Petitioner’s characterization of service to General under Honorable conditions. When applying liberal consideration to the circumstances of Petitioner’s case based on his mental health diagnosis, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner was severely impacted by his mental health condition in 1987 and it contributed to the misconduct that formed the basis for his administrative separation. The Board took into consideration that Petitioner performed above fleet standards prior to 1987 with no evidence of misconduct prior to his first suicidal gesture. Based on these factors, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s mental health condition provides sufficient mitigation to offset the severity of his misconduct when liberally considered in accordance with existing Board guidelines. Regarding Petitioner’s request to change his narrative reason for separation to disability, the Board found the preponderance of the evidence does not support relief. Even after applying liberal consideration, the Board found Petitioner was mentally responsible for the misconduct he committed and fit for active duty at the time of his discharge from the Navy. The Board relied on the 28 June 1987 medical report which determined Petitioner was psychiatrically fit for duty and his 3 August 1987 separation physical which medically cleared him for discharge. The Board also noted Petitioner stated he was in “good health” in his 3 August 1987 Report of Medical History that was considered during his separation physical. Based on these factors, the Board determined Petitioner was more likely than not fit for active duty at the time of his discharge and, in any case, not eligible for disability processing due to his misconduct. The Board also determined the preponderance of the evidence did not support reinstating Petitioner to his former paygrade of E4. After applying liberal consideration, the Board concluded Petitioner was mentally responsible for his unauthorized absences, missing ship’s movement, and breaking restriction. As such, the Board felt he was properly demoted to E3 based on the seriousness of his misconduct. Further, the Board did not find an injustice exists due to his demotion based on the Board’s decision to recommend an upgrade of his characterization of service. In the Board’s opinion, this upgrade will likely entitle Petitioner to significant Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation and that future VA compensation considerably lessens any injustice argument that a reinstatement to paygrade E4 is required. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing his characterization of service to General under Honorable conditions. He shall be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the change. 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. 12/26/2019