DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8837-19 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 of 3 Sep 14, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD” (c) PDUSD memo of 24 Feb 16, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” (d) PDUSD memo of 25 Aug 17, “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” (e) USD memo of 25 Jul 18, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (NR20190008837) (2) Case summary (3) Advisory Opinion dtd 10 Dec 20 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 her characterization of service be upgraded. Enclosures (2) - (3) and references (b) - (e) apply. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 15 January 2021, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that 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 waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 May 1998. On 23 September 1998, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order by going into an MM3’s BEQ room. On 17 February 1999, Petitioner received a second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21. d. On 15 April 1999, Petitioner began duty onboard USS (DD ). e. Petitioner’s complete administrative separation package is not reflected in Petitioner’s available service record. Petitioner’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) reflects that Petitioner was discharged from the Navy on 10 May 2000, on the basis of Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense, and received a general discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. f. In Petitioner’s application to the Board, she asks that her discharge be upgraded. She indicates that she would like her discharge changed from other than honorable to general; however, a review of her DD Form 214 indicates that Petitioner received a general discharge when she was separated from active duty on 10 May 2000. g. Petitioner states that she was punished for something that was done to her as a victim of rape. Petitioner states that she consumed alcohol, and was then sexually assaulted by three men off her ship. Since she had been previously reprimanded for underage drinking, Petitioner states that because she drank before the rape happened, this was held against her. Petitioner requested that her discharge be upgraded. h. The Board noted that Petitioner’s application for correction raises a potential issue of military sexual trauma (MST). Accordingly, Petitioner’s application was considered pursuant to references (b) through (e). i. In a communication dated 26 September 2019, Petitioner was asked to provide additional medical or clinical evidence to support her claim. When she did not provide additional evidence, her case was re-opened and processed for consideration by the Board. j. As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed Petitioner’s available records. An AO was issued that concluded that although Petitioner presents a credible narrative for MST, there is insufficient objective evidence that Petitioner experienced psychological symptoms or exhibited behaviors associated with victims of MST that may have mitigated her actions or discharge characterization. CONCLUSION The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application, the available service record, and the AO. The Board concurred substantially with the findings of the AO and determined that Petitioner’s record does not reflect evidence sufficient to establish psychological symptoms or behaviors associated with MST that may have mitigated the misconduct reflected in Petitioner’s record before her duty onboard the USS (). The Board noted in part that a general discharge is not an adverse characterization of service and that Petitioner’s record reflects misconduct as early as 23 September 1998, prior to her assignment onboard the USS ) when she indicated that she was the victim of an MST. Accordingly, the Board found that although Petitioner’s post-MST conduct may be mitigated by the trauma and resultant mental health issues, her earlier misconduct was such that a general characterization of service rather than an honorable was warranted. The Board did find, however, that Petitioner does merit corrective action to her narrative reason for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority,” and a corresponding change to her separation authority and her separation code. The Board based its decision on Petitioner’s statement to the Board regarding the MST and Petitioner’s post-discharge mental health diagnosis and disability ratings. In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 10 May 2000, she was issued a general discharge by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” that her separation authority is “MILPERSMAN 1910-164, and her SPD code is “JFF.” That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. 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.