DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7663-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER , USN, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards 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 (e) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190007663 of 3 Nov 2020 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 naval record be corrected to reflect an upgraded characterization of service, change of narrative reason for separation, and upgrade of reentry code. Petitioner also noted the last four digits of his social security number (SSN) are incorrect on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 2. The Board consisting of , , and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 December 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo), the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider which was previously provided to Petitioner. Although Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, Petitioner did not do so. 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 in accordance with the Kurta Memo. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 1 July 1973. On 11 January 1974, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) of less than two hours. On 3 April 1974, he received a second NJP for a UA of approximately six hours. On 13 July 1974, Petitioner was convicted by summary court-martial of two instances of UA totaling 22 days and sentenced to forfeiture and 30 days restriction. On 10 December 1974, he received a third NJP for disobeying a direct order by a superior commissioned officer. On 16 January 1975, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a seven-day UA and missing movement and sentenced to 15 days confinement at hard labor. d. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement with military authorities. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended administrative separation by reason of unfitness with a general, under honorable conditions (GEN) character of service. The discharge authority, after confirming Petitioner was counseled regarding his behavior, concurred with the CO and Enlisted Performance Evaluation Board and directed Petitioner be discharged with a GEN character of service due to unfitness. Petitioner was discharged on 18 February 1975. e. Petitioner contends he was sexually assaulted while in training at Naval Recruit Training , , . f. Petitioner’s SSN currently ends with " " on his DD Form 214 and throughout his record except when he was required to write his SSN. On the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) documentation provided in support of his request for upgrade to his discharge, the VA lists the last four digits of his SSN as “ ". g. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided enclosure (3). The AO stated Petitioner’s records do not contain direct evidence that he suffered an event indicative of military sexual trauma (MST) or that he experienced psychological or behavioral changes indicative of MST or the early symptoms of PTSD. However, the AO noted Petitioner provided a credible statement detailing the MST and symptoms he experienced after the MST. The described behaviors and psychological symptoms are the type of behaviors that someone who suffered MST, and then developed PTSD, would experience. The AO concluded Petitioner’s descriptions are sufficiently detailed and lend credibility to Petitioner’s contention. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes there is sufficient objective evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with victims of MST, as well as early symptoms of PTSD, incurred during his military service and that his misconduct may be mitigated by his experience of MST/PTSD. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e). 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 reaching fair 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, applying liberal consideration and relying on the AO, determined there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered from MST as well as early symptoms of PTSD. However, noting the SPCM conviction for missing movement, the Board concluded the assigned GEN character of service appropriately described Petitioner’s service and denied the request to upgrade to honorable. In the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.” The Board also determined the last four digits of Petitioner’s SSN should be listed as " ." RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, with the correct last four digits of his SSN as " ,” indicating the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in 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-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. , 1/14/2021 Executive Director