From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER 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 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD 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) SECDEF memo of 25 Jul 2018 “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 (2) Advisory Opinion of 14 December 2020 (3) Selections of Petitioner’s Official Military Personnel File 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 by upgrading his discharge characterization and correcting the dates that he served in the on his DD Form 214. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 1 February 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 Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (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 the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. The Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 June 1968. c. On 10 January 1969, Petitioner commenced a period of duty in the as a radio operator, during which he participated in two named combat operations. Before and during his deployment to , his performance marks were consistently in the range of 4.7 for proficiency and 4.7 for conduct, which is above average. d. Petitioner returned from combat operations in on 2 January 1970. After his return, he received nonjudicial punishment on 20 May 1970 for a short period of unauthorized absence. The next month he received nonjudicial punishment again for being absent from restricted muster and from his place of duty. Thereafter, his performance continued to decline and was marked by a series of unauthorized absences that ultimately totaled 849 days for which he received punishment in the form of two special courts-martial (1 December 1970 and 24 February 1971). He received a bad conduct discharge (BCD) at his second court-martial. While the details are not clear, it appears that he was arrested for robbery by civilian authorities after he received his BCD, but the disposition of that allegation is not available. Petitioner’s BCD was executed on 25 July 1973, and it was reported on his DD Form 214 as an Other Than Honorable characterization of service, and not as BCD, as was the fashion at the time. e. In his petition, Petitioner described how he used alcohol as a way to cope with the “death and chaos” around him while in , as well as continued use when he returned to the US as a way to “forget everything.” He also noted his symptoms and issues occurred during the first two years after he returned from . He provided civilian psychiatry clinical notes that described symptoms associated with PTSD (i.e., nightmares, avoidance, depressed mood) after he returned to the U.S. f. The Board requested, and received an AO, furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which is at enclosure (2). The AO was considered favorable to Petitioner, and stated: [Petitioner] did exhibit psychological/behavioral changes, which may have indicated a mental health condition. For instance, his first NJP did not happen until May of 1970, after his return from . His misconduct is largely associated with UA following return from a combat deployment. It is reasonable to attribute his misconduct to avoidance symptoms associated with PTSD. Based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion there is sufficient direct evidence Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with PTSD during his military service and some of his misconduct may be mitigated by his PTSD. Petitioner’s civilian arrest for robbery would not be mitigated by his PTSD, nor would it be likely all 574 days of UA between 30 November 1971 through 26 June 1973. g. Petitioner also contends that his DD Form 214 incorrectly states that he served in from 10 October 1969 to 2 January 1970, when he actually served in from 10 January 1969 to 2 January 1970. His contention is consistent with his official records. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (e), the Board determined that with respect to the specific relief that Petitioner requested, there exists an error or injustice warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that the Petitioner’s service was in line with expectations prior to his nearly one-year service in the . Upon his return from , his service took a turn for the worse. The nature of his offenses, repeated unauthorized absences, has been identified by the AO as an avoidance symptom associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Board did not agree that his discharge characterization should be upgraded to Honorable, as all of his misconduct could not be attributed to his PTSD. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization to General (Under Honorable Conditions) as well as to grant associated relief in the form of changing his reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority as set forth in more detail below. The Board also found the existence of a clerical error on his DD Form 214 incorrectly stating the duration of his time in . Accordingly, based on a careful review of all of the facts presented, the Board concludes that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that his discharge at separation was General (Under Honorable Conditions), that the narrative reason and authority for his separation was MARCORSEPMAN 6012.1g, Secretarial Authority, and separation code was JFF1. His reentry code shall remain as RE-4. That his DD Form 214 reflects the dates of his service in the as 10 January 1969 to 2 January 1970. That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.