DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7290-19 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, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards 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) Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No: NR20190007290 of 9 Dec 19 (3) Updated Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No. NR20190007290 of 31 Dec 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board upgrade his characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and ,reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 January 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 opinions (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 Marine Corps on 25 March 2003. He served without disciplinary incident until 29 October 2003 when he received nonjudicial punishment for a 53­day unauthorized absence (UA). Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. His record is incomplete in that it does not contain the administrative separation notification or his commanding officer’s recommendation, but a review of the discharge authority documentation indicates the staff judge advocate reviewed the administrative separation documentation and determined it was sufficient in law and fact. According to Petitioner’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), after he waived his procedural rights, the discharge authority directed Petitioner be separated with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct. He was discharged on 5 December 2003 with an OTH characterization of service. d. Petitioner contends he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of Military Sexual Trauma (MST). Specifically, he contends he was sexually harassed on a daily basis, and the harassment culminated in a group beating. After being knocked unconscious, Petitioner contends his eyebrows were shaved and his face drawn upon by his Marine peers. He contends he felt he could no longer go to formation and wanted to end his life, so he left on the UA. e. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed both Petitioner’s assertions and available records and then provided an AO, enclosure (2). The AO was unable to render a comprehensive opinion because Petitioner had not submitted medical records in support of his statement. Upon receipt of the unfavorable AO, Petitioner submitted his Department of Veterans Affairs treatment notes listing diagnoses of PTSD and bipolar disorder. An updated AO, enclosure (3), was provided after review of the medical records. The second AO stated there was evidence Petitioner incurred PTSD during his military service, and the UA which followed the assault, could be attributed to avoidance of reminders of the traumatic incident. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, theBoard 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 reachingfair 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, relying upon the updated AO and applying liberal consideration, determined Petitioner’s diagnosed PTSD due to MST mitigated his UA misconduct. The Board concluded it was in the interest of justice to upgrade his characterization of service and correct his corresponding narrative reason for separation, separation authority, and the separation 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”, the 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 24 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 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. 1/19/2020 Deputy Director