DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7344-19 Ref: Signature date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USN, XXX-XX- 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 w/attachments (2) Nonjudicial Punishment of 16 Mar 87 (3) Counseling/Warning of 16 Mar 87 (4) Nonjudicial Punishment of 6 Jul 87 (5) Counseling/Warning of 7 Jul 87 (6) Standard Form 515, Medical Record: Consultation Sheet, 22 July 1987 (7) Memorandum, subj: Notice of a Notification Procedure Proposed Action, 28 July 1987 (8) Petitioner Memo, subj: Statement of Awareness and Request for, or Waiver of, Privileges, 29 July 1987 (9) DD Form 214 (10) Enlisted Performance Record (11) BCNR Docket No: 2605-17 of 9 Oct 17 (12) Network Ltr of 15 Feb 18 (13) Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, 14 August 2018 (14) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 3 Nov 20 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 the narrative reason for his separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 December 2020, and pursuant to its regulations, the Majority of the Board 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 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 submitted in the timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to consider Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy Reserve (USNR) and began a period of active duty on 19 November 1986. See enclosure (9). d. On 16 March 1987, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). See enclosure (2). He was also counseled on this date for his UA and warned that further deficiencies in his conduct may result in further disciplinary action and/or processing for administrative discharge. See enclosure (3). e. On 6 July 1987, Petitioner received NJP for three specifications of UA in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. See enclosure (4). He was again counseled and warned that any further deficiencies may result in further disciplinary action and/or processing for administrative discharge. See enclosure (5). f. On 22 July 1987, Petitioner was diagnosed with a Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder (Severe). The mental health provider who evaluated Petitioner recommended that he be administratively separated “as soon as possible.” See enclosure (6). g. By memorandum dated 28 July 1987, Petitioner was notified of that he was being processed for administrative separation for the convenience of the government due to his personality disorder. This notification informed Petitioner that the least favorable characterization of service that he could receive was general (under honorable conditions). See enclosure (7). h. By memorandum dated 29 July 1987, Petitioner acknowledged that he would be administratively separated with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder. He specifically elected not to object to this separation. See enclosure (8). i. On 31 July 1987, Petitioner was discharged from the USNR with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service due to “Physical/Mental Conditions – Personality Disorder.” See enclosure (9). j. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner’s conduct rating average was 1.0. See enclosure (10). The minimum conduct average required for an honorable characterization of service at the time was 3.0. k. By memorandum dated 9 October 2017, the Board denied Petitioner’s previous request to upgrade his characterization of service. At that time, the Petitioner contended that he developed his personality disorder due to an assault he experienced in basic training. See enclosure (11). l. On 15 February 2018, Petitioner was diagnosed by a mental health provider with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder. See enclosure (12). While he asserts that this providerdetermined these conditions were “very likely … both caused by the traumatic events [Petitioner] endured in his military service, including bullying, verbal and physical assault that occurred during boot training,” he provided no evidence to support this assertion. m. On 15 August 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted Petitioner a 100% service-connected disability rating for PTSD with major depressive disorder. See enclosure (13). n. Petitioner asserts that his misconduct was the result of his PTSD condition, which arose out of the assault that he endured while in basic training. o. As part of the Board’s review process, Petitioner’s application and records were reviewed by a qualified mental health professional, who provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration. The AO noted that Petitioner’s in-service medical records reflect that he was reluctant to speak during a psychological evaluation, and that this, along with his multiple UAs, are not uncommon avoidance behaviors exhibited by someone who has experienced a traumatic event and is unsure of how to process it. Despite a relatively limited amount of information upon which to draw a conclusion, the AO found that there was sufficient evidence that 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. See enclosure (14). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration of Petitioner’s application and all of the evidence of record, the Majority of the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrant partial relief. Given Petitioner’s diagnosis for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, his application was reviewed in accordance with the guidance of references (b) – (d). Accordingly, the Board applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s PTSD condition and the effect that it may have had upon his misconduct, and special consideration to the VA determination that Petitioner’s PTSD condition was service connected. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the AO finding that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Petitioner suffered from a mental health condition while on active duty, and that this condition may have mitigated his misconduct. In addition to applying liberal consideration to Petitioner’s PTSD condition, the Board also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice in accordance with reference (e). In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, Petitioner’s PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder conditions, and the effect that these condition may have had upon Petitioner’s judgment or misconduct; Petitioner’s assertion that he suffered the PTSD-triggering event at the hands of his fellow Sailors; that Petitioner may have been misdiagnosed and therefore untreated for PTSD; the relatively minor nature of Petitioner’s misconduct; Petitioner’s relative youth and immaturity at the time of his misconduct; and the passage of time since Petitioner’s discharge. Based upon this review, and applying liberal consideration to Petitioner’s PTSD condition, the Board determined that the narrative reason for Petitioner’s separation should be changed for accuracy and to avoid potential negative implications. The Majority did not, however, find that an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service was warranted in the interests of justice. While the Majority found that Petitioner’s mental health conditions may have mitigated his misconduct, it noted that Petitioner was not separated for misconduct. While the Majority did not doubt that Petitioner’s misconduct contributed to his characterization of service, it also believed that Petitioner’s characterization of service was largely influenced by Petitioner’s average performance ratings. Petitioner’s conduct rating of 1.0 was far below the minimum rating required to qualify for an honorable discharge. Likewise, his overall final performance average was 2.0, also below the minimum threshold. Based upon this, and the fact that a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service is not considered to be adverse, the Majority did not believe that an upgrade to honorable was warranted under the totality of the circumstances. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that the narrative reason for his 31 July 1987 discharge was “Secretarial Authority”; that the separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”; and that the separation 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. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The Minority also applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s assertion of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder and the effect that these conditions may have had upon his conduct in accordance with references (b) and (d), and considered the totality of the circumstances in accordance with reference (e). Based upon this review, the Minority concurred with the Majority that the upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service was not warranted under the totality of the circumstances. The Minority disagreed with the Majority conclusion, however, that partial relief was warranted. In this regard, the Minorityfound no error or injustice in Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation because Petitioner was, in fact, separated for a properly diagnosed personality disorder in accordance with Navy regulations. The Minority did not question Petitioner’s current diagnoses, but did not believe that that a 2018 diagnosis of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder was sufficient to call the 1987 diagnosis of a personality disorder into doubt. Finding no error or injustice in the Petitioner’s characterization of service or narrative reason for separation, and the possibility of adverse consequences from either to be remote, the Minority did not belief that any relief was warranted under the totality of the circumstances. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority of the Board recommends that no corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record: 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-titled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Decision: MAJORITY Recommendation Approved (Partial Relief; Change Narrative Reason for Separation)