DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7978-19 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- , 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” 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) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to MilitaryDischarge Review Boards and 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) USECDEF 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) MAVMC 118 (11), Administrative Remarks (3) NAVMC 10132, Unit Punishment Book, 1 October 2006 (4) Report of Results of Trial, 2 May 2008 (5) DD Form 214 (6) Advisory Opinion (AO), 3 November 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 bad-conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 December 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 the Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include references (b) – (e). 3. The Board, having reviewed all of 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 interests of justice to consider Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 6 September 2005. See enclosure (6). d. On 27 January 2006, Petitioner was counseled for disobeying an order by leaving the installation and driving a motor vehicle without permission or proof of registration or insurance. See enclosure (2). e. On 12 April 2006, Petitioner was counseled for losing two copies of his military identification card in a one-week period. See enclosure (2). f. On 1 October 2006, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to make required radio checks and sleeping on post, in violation of Article 113, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). See enclosure (3). g. On 2 May 2008, Petitioner was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of one specification of failing to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully discharging a weapon in a building, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful use of Ecstacy, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and larceny by stealing motorcycle parts from a fellow Marine, violation of Article 121, UCMJ. His sentence included reduction to the rank of private (from lance corporal), 60 days of confinement, and a BCD. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged on 29 May 2008.1 See enclosure (4). h. On 29 April 2009, Petitioner was separated from the Marine Corps with a BCD. See enclosure (5). i. Petitioner states that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and he provided evidence that he has sought treatment for PTSD. He also asserts that he started self-medicating after his return from Iraq for stress and anxiety, and that he is still dealing with these issues. See enclosure (1). j. Petitioner’s application and records were reviewed by a qualified mental health provider, who provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration. The AO noted that Petitioner’s misconduct reflected maladaptive coping skills common for persons with undiagnosed PTSD. The AO commented that Petitioner’s time line of misconduct relative to his claimed traumatic event lends credibility to his contention of PTSD. The AO concluded that there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD during his military service and his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health disorder. See enclosure (6). 1 The convening authority approved the sentence to confinement, but suspended all confinement in excess of 50 days for 12 months. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Majority of the Board found that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded in the interests of justice. Based upon his assertion of PTSD, his application was considered in accordance with the guidance of references (b) – (d). Accordingly, the Board applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s assertion of PTSD and the effect that it may have had upon him. Based upon this review, theBoard found Petitioner’s claim of PTSD to be credible, and that this condition and his self-medication for its symptoms likely contributed to and therefore mitigated his misconduct. In addition to applying liberal consideration to Petitioner’s claim of PTSD, 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, that Petitioner developed PTSD during his service in the Marine Corps and the likely impact that this had upon his conduct; that Petitioner continues to suffer from PTSD symptoms; Petitioner’s combat service in Iraq; that Petitioner took responsibility for his misconduct by pleading guilty at his court-martial and in his application to the Board; Petitioner’s assertion that he has stayed out of trouble and been agood citizen; 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, the Majority determined that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions), and that the narrative reason for his separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Although not requested by the Petitioner, the Majority considered whether to recommend upgrading Petitioner’s characterization of service to fully honorable. However, it determined that such relief would be inappropriate under the totality of the circumstances given the significant nature of Petitioner’s misconduct. 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 on 29 April 2009 he was discharged from the Marine Corps with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service; that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority”; that the separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214”; and that the separation code was “JFF1.” 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 of the Board concurred with the conclusion of the Majority that relief is warranted under the totality of the circumstances. However, the Minority believed that the Majority recommendation does not go far enough to serve the interests of justice. Given the current understanding of mental health conditions, the Minority believed that an upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service to fully honorable was warranted under the totality of the circumstances. MINORITY 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 on 29 April 2009 he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service; that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority”; that the separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214”; and that the separation code was “JFF1.” That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 4. It is certified that 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 (Upgrade to General (under honorable conditions))