Docket No: 7925-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 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) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190007925 of 13 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 character of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 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. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 5 March 1968. On 9 February 1969, he deployed to and participated in nine combat operations. d. On 26 August 1969, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty which was the battery formation at 0515. On 7 September 1969, he received a second NJP for breaking restriction and signing another Marine’s initials to his restriction paper. On 24 September 1969, he received a third NJP for breaking restriction on two occasions. On 2 October 1969, he received a fourth NJP for breaking restriction by failing to check in with the duty noncommissioned officer. On 29 November 1969, he was convicted by summary court-martial for leaving his post without being relieved and sentenced to reduction in rank, forfeitures, and confinement. e. On 20 March 1970, Petitioner completed his service in . On 26 May 1970, he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which ended on 25 March 1971. On 3 May 1971, he began a second period of UA which ended on 11 August 1971. On 3 September 1971, he was convicted by special court-martial for these two periods of UA. Petitioner was sentenced to confinement, forfeitures, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review. Petitioner was discharged on 26 January 1972. f. Petitioner contends he was “having some mental issues due to being in combat” which affected his ability to make good judgments and decisions. He further contends he was young and made mistakes but, since discharge, has not violated the law. Enclosure (1) applies. g. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 13 November 2020. The AO states his in-service records did not reveal any evidence that he exhibited any mental health symptoms or conditions during his military service. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes there is insufficient evidence Petitioner incurred a mental health condition as a result of his military service or that his misconduct may be attributable to a mental health condition. Enclosure (2) applies. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief in the form of a discharge upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The Board reviewed his 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 these policies. Notwithstanding the AO, the Board, applying liberal consideration and relying on the Wilkie Memo, determined Petitioner’s post- UA misconduct was mitigated by the extensive combat operations he participated in while in . The Board noted his misconduct did not include drug use and the in-country NJPs were for minor infractions. Additionally, 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.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his characterization of service as “general, under honorable conditions,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” reenlistment code as “RE-4,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6012.1f.” 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 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.