DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7314-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER XXX-XX-3615, USMC 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,” 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,” 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,” 25 August 2017 (e) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, dtd 6 Nov 20 (3) Nonjudicial Punishment dtd 18 Jun 12 (4) Nonjudicial Punishment dtd 29 Jun 12 (5) DD Form 214 (6) Overall Trait Average (7) NDRB ltr 5810 MD15-00353/CMV dtd 31 Mar 15 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 characterization of service be upgraded to honorable, and that his narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) code be changed to reflect his honorable service. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 November 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include references (b) – (e). 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, the statute of limitations was waived in accordance with references (c) and (d). c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 8 June 2009. See enclosure (5). d. Petitioner deployed to Afghanistan as part of the from October 2010 through May 2011. While deployed, Petitioner experienced significant combat activity. He survived an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack and earned the Combat Action Ribbon. e. On 29 November 2011, Petitioner tested positive for the use of cocaine, for which he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 18 June 2012. See enclosure (3). f. On 29 June 2012, Petitioner received a second NJP for breaking the restriction imposed pursuant to the 18 June 2012 NJP referenced above. See enclosure (4). g. On 14 November 2012, Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct (drug abuse), and received a RE code of 4B. See enclosure (5). h. In 2015, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) disapproved Petitioner’s request to upgrade his characterization of service. See enclosure (7). i. Petitioner was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) arising from his combat experience on 22 February 2019, for which he subsequently received treatment. He was also diagnosed with anxiety disorder, depression, and alcohol dependence. His subsequent treatment records reflect that he reported symptoms including nightmares of mortar attacks, passive suicidal ideations, flashbacks, anxiety, and being socially withdrawn since his return from Afghanistan in 2011. See enclosure (1). j. Petitioner asserts that he turned to alcohol following his combat experience in Afghanistan to cope with the symptoms of his then-undiagnosed PTSD, and that this attempt to self-medicate contributed to the misconduct for which he was discharged. Specifically, he asserts his belief that he unknowingly used cocaine during one of his frequent alcohol-induced blackouts, and that he did not remember ever using the drug. Petitioner also asserts that he was not afforded a fair opportunity to explain his conduct at the time of his discharge. See enclosure (1). k. As part of the reviewprocess, Petitioner’s service and medical records were reviewed by a licensed clinical psychologist, who provided the Board with an advisory opinion (AO). The AO noted that Petitioner’s records reflect a notable change in his behavior following his traumatic combat experience, which may have indicated a mental health conduct. The AO also commented that Petitioner’s recent diagnosis with alcohol dependence lends credibility to his contention that he consumed excessive amounts of alcohol as a coping mechanism in the absence of treatment for PTSD. Based upon this review, the AO concluded that there is sufficient evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service, and that his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health disorder. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Based upon Petitioner’s diagnosis of combat-related PTSD, the Majority of Board reviewed Petitioner’s application in light of the guidance provided by references (b) – (d). Accordingly, the Majority applied liberal consideration to his request. Noting that Petitioner’s behavior changed following his return from Afghanistan, that Petitioner experienced significant combat activity while deployed, and that he has since been diagnosed with PTSD related to that combat experience, the Majority believed that Petitioner did turn to alcohol as a coping mechanism in the absence of treatment for the PTSD symptoms that he was suffering. As a result, the Majority also found that the misconduct for which Petitioner was discharged was substantially mitigated by his mental health condition. In addition to applying liberal consideration to Petitioner’s application in accordance with references (b) – (d), the Majority also considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant the requested relief in accordance with the guidance of reference (e). These potentially mitigating factors included, but were not limited to, Petitioner’s overall service record, which included significant combat experience and which was, according to his service record and the letters of support he provided, apparently exemplary prior to his return from deployment; that Petitioner developed PTSD as a result of his combat experiences in the Marine Corps and continues to deal with the symptoms even today; that Petitioner’s judgment was impaired due to his efforts to self-medicate in the absence of PTSD treatment; that Petitioner’s proficiency and conduct records throughout his enlistment were favorable despite his post-deployment misconduct (see enclosure (6)); Petitioner’s assertion that he was not afforded a fair opportunity to explain his conduct; that Petitioner has been employed and is currently enrolled in college, and that he wants to help other wounded Veterans overcome their injuries; that Petitioner volunteers in the community; the passage of time since Petitioner’s discharge; and the very persuasive letters of support from the Marines with whom Petitioner served. Based upon these consideration, the Majority determined that the interests of justice demand full relief to reflect Petitioner’s service as honorable. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends the following corrective actions: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service, that the reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority,” that the separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6421,” that his SPD code was “JFF,” and that his reentry code was RE-1. 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 23 July 2019. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The Minority of the Board also applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s application in accordance with references (b) – (d), and considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief. Based upon the review, the Minority concurred with the Majority that Petitioner’s misconduct was mitigated byhis mental health condition, and that relief is warranted in the interest of justice. Based upon the serious nature of Petitioner’s misconduct for which he was discharged, however, the Minority determined that Petitioner’s characterization of service should beupgraded only to general (under honorable conditions), rather than to fully honorable. For this reason, the Minority also disagreed with the Majority recommendation that Petitioner’s reentry code be changed, but otherwise concurred with the Majority recommendations. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, that the reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority,” that the separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6421,” that his SPD code was “JFF.” That no further corrective action be taken. 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 23 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER & RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: MAJORITY Recommendation Approved (Full relief, upgrade to Honorable) 1/26/2021 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)