Docket No: 8431-19 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: NR20190008431 of 2 Dec 2020 (4) Rebuttal to the Advisory Opinion 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. 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 January 2021 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 and the rebuttal to the AO received on 4 January 2021. 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 Navy on 21 March 1984. On 12 September 1988, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 14 December 1988, after admitting to the experimental use of cocaine on three to four occasions, he received a second NJP for wrongful use and wrongful possession of a controlled substance. d. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After he waived his procedural rights and submitted a statement in lieu of an administrative discharge board, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service. The discharge authority concurred and directed Petitioner be discharged with an OTH character of service due to misconduct. Petitioner was discharged on 8 March 1989. e. Petitioner contends the following: 1) Petitioner contends the record is unjust because of his inability to make mature decisions based on his PTSD and alcoholism. Specifically, he contends he was very immature while in-service and because of serious abuse as a child, had PTSD. Petitioner further contends that he used drugs and alcohol to mask the emotional and physical pain he felt. 2) Petitioner explains the family dynamics that impacted him, the sexual trauma he experienced in eighth grade at the hands of a coach, his introduction to alcohol by his father when he was twelve, and how drinking alcohol became a part of his identification because “it was the only thing I was good at, the only thing people told me I was good at.” 3) Petitioner contends his “incredible immaturity” was the main thing that led to his abuse of drugs and alcohol in the Navy. In his rebuttal, he submitted medical research in support of his contention that “people who engage in alcoholic behavior become emotionally stunted at the age when they began alcoholic behavior” which gave him the maturity of a thirteen year old while he was serving on active duty. 4) Petitioner contends he has been sober for over ten years and in therapy for over fifteen years. His remorse is evident in his statement that “there is nothing in my life that I am more ashamed of than my conduct in the Navy. I embarrassed myself, my family, my country, the people who tried many times to help me, and the Navy. If you would have me back, I would put my life on hold for the next four years and join back up, to do it right.” 5) Petitioner contends he has graduated from college, worked for the same company for over 15 years, and focuses his philanthropy on veterans and veteran causes. He seeks to upgrade his discharge so that “when I die, my wife can put a flag on my casket with a clear conscience” and “so I can hold my head a bit higher when I tell people I am a vet.” 6) Petitioner submitted an advocacy letter from a high school friend that enlisted with him and retired from the Navy. The friend, who has known Petitioner for over 36 years, confirmed Petitioner’s childhood stories and shared Petitioner’s post-service accomplishments and support for the Navy through numerous charitable events. 7) Petitioner submitted a letter from the holistic psychotherapist that has been treating him for the past seven years. The psychotherapist explained that Petitioner has been dealing with complex PTSD, which is a PTSD compounded by developmental issues of abuse and neglect. He further stated Petitioner “clearly used drugs and alcohol to mask the emotional trauma he was not ready to deal with” and his “level of immaturity compounded by the PTSD made it virtually impossible for him to make competent mature decisions.” f. 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 states Petitioner’s in-service records do not contain evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD or psychological/behavioral changes which may have indicated any mental health condition. The AO further states that, although Petitioner contends he suffered from PTSD, there is no evidence linking his PTSD diagnosis to his military service or to his misconduct. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes the preponderance of evidence fails to establish Petitioner’s in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other mental health condition. Enclosure (3) applies. g. In his rebuttal to the AO, Petitioner reiterates that he did not claim that he has service-related PTSD but asserted that he had “PTSD long before ever joining the Navy” and is “presenting that I was an alcoholic before I enlisted.” He further points out that his understanding of the criteria for changing records relies upon whether he has demonstrated his “inability to function as any of his well-adjusted peers would.” CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants 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 Board, applying liberal consideration and the factors outlined in the Wilkie Memo, concluded that, although it found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice, Petitioner’s request warranted clemency in the form of an upgrade to his characterization of service. Specifically, the Board noted Petitioner’s traumatic childhood which resulted in a broken, immature, alcohol-dependent individual who enlisted in the Navy. The Board further noted Petitioner’s remorseful attitude and acceptance of total responsibility for his behavior. Additionally, the Board noted it has been over thirty years since Petitioner’s discharge, and during the past fifteen years he has dedicated himself to treatment of his emotional and mental health, and chosen sobriety for more than ten years. Based on these factors, the Board concluded that as a matter of clemency, his discharge characterization should be upgraded to “general (under honorable conditions),” the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “secretarial authority,” the separation code should be changed to “JFF,” and separation authority should be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” 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 “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.