Docket No.8492-19 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, 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 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. His case, which was most recently denied by the Board on 25 March 1992, was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 October 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 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 1 September 1966. On 21 May 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a ten-day unauthorized absence (UA). On 19 September 1968, he was psychologically evaluated and diagnosed with passive dependent personality but determined to be fit for full duty. On 10 January 1969, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for two UA periods of 31 days and 86 days. He was sentenced to confinement, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD), which was suspended for a period of six months. On 25 March 1969, Petitioner was released from confinement and restored to duty. On 21 August 1969, he was convicted by SPCM for two UA periods of 53 days and 27 days and sentenced to confinement. Subsequently, the suspension of Petitioner’s BCD from the 10 January 1969 SPCM was vacated and ordered executed. Although the court-martial review documentation is not in the record, a review of Petitioner’s DD Form 214 reflects the BCD had been approved at all levels of review, and on 24 October 1969, he was discharged. d. Petitioner contends he was young, immature, homesick, and suffering from harassment and undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which had been diagnosed as anxiety disorder. Specifically, Petitioner details his experience on a ship in the waters of South Vietnam and his honorable service despite the bigotry he experienced on the ship. He further explains that after returning from Vietnam, his anxious and nervous feelings increased to “constant and overwhelming.” He felt trapped and started feeling immense longing for home where he was treated with respect as a human. Petitioner contends his youth and immaturity left him inexperienced to handle his feelings, irrational, and judgment-impaired. He knew the decision to absent himself was not a sound choice but “it seemed my only way out.” Lastly, Petitioner contends his discharge reads “bad conduct” but he “never started a fight, never abused government property, was never disrespectful to my superiors, never drunk, never the cause for trouble of any sort.” He was just “lonely and afraid and homesick and confused.” e. In support of his request for an upgraded characterization of service, Petitioner submitted a letter from a psychiatrist at in the where Petitioner has been treated since 30 November 1998 until present. The letter details Petitioner’s mental health history since admission, to include reporting his PTSD diagnosis, alcohol abuse, marijuana abuse, history of depression, tobacco dependence, and a possible history of substance-induced psychosis. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that 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 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 carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered each of his contentions. The Board noted the psychological evaluation Petitioner underwent in September 1968, and concluded that this evaluation supported Petitioner’s contention that he was experiencing mental health symptoms while in-service. This was corroborated by the letter submitted by Petitioner’s current psychologist, who confirmed that Petitioner continues to present mental health concerns consistent with those noted during his service. Applying liberal consideration and relying upon reference (e), the Board determined Petitioner’s request warrants relief in the form of clemency, and, in the interest of justice, concluded his discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions and his separation reason and corresponding data changed to reflect “secretarial authority”. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the 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. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 3 September 2019. 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.