From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USMC, 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) USD 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) USD 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 (f) Advisory Opinion of 13 August 2021 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case summary 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 to honorable. His current characterization of service is considered general (under honorable conditions), but this characterization was issued by a Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Board, and the Petitioner contends that he is not eligible for any benefits that would be attendant to having a true general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. As described below, the Board recommended affirming the Petitioner’s general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, and also changing the Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, authority for separation, and separation code to Secretarial Authority. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 August 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, and references (b) through (e), which include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 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 reference (f) 13 August 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider. 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 commenced a period of active duty on 16 August 1967. Between May 1968 to May 1969, the Petitioner participated in at least 20 named combat expeditions. As a result of his service in , he was awarded, among others, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal with device. In June 1969, the Petitioner returned to the United States, and then in August 1969, the Petitioner redeployed to . On 5 March 1970, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for sleeping on post. On 9 July 1970, the Petitioner was convicted by a general court-martial for stealing 52 pistols and 10 revolvers, and for unlawfully entering the battalion armory. Part of the Petitioner’s sentence included 18 months of confinement; however, he cooperated with the prosecution, exhibited remorse, and was released after six months of confinement. On 15 October 1970, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing by reason of unfitness as evidenced by an unauthorized possession and transfer of marijuana and LSD, at which time he elected to exercise his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board. The administrative board recommended that Petitioner be retained. The separation authority disapproved the administrative board’s recommendation and directed that the Petitioner be discharged by reason of unfitness with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Before the administrative discharge was finalized, Petitioner was charged with wrongfully carrying a concealed weapon. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for wrongfully carrying a concealed weapon. On 16 December 1970, Petitioner was discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service. c. Petitioner filed an application for review of his discharge with the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB). On 31 October 1972, the NDRB denied his application. On 6 April 1977, the Petitioner filed to have his discharge upgraded under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 28 October 1977, he was advised that his application had been approved and his discharge had been upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 8 July 1978, however, the Petitioner was advised that, despite his upgrade pursuant to to the SDPR, his form of discharge upgrade made him ineligible for benefits from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. In 2014, the Petitioner filed a petition with this Board seeking an upgrade to his discharge characterization. On 13 July 2016, this Board denied his request. There is no indication that the Petitioner’s upgraded discharge to general (under honorable conditions) has been affirmed by this, or any other board, and he has asserted in his petition that he remains inelible for benefits from the VA due to the nature of his discharge upgrade. d. The Petitioner contends that he spent thirteen months in combat as a Marine in Vietnam and has suffered from PTSD for decades. He states he participated in seventeen named combat operations, rose to the rank of Corporal, and was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnamese Service Medal with one star, the Rifle Expert Badge, and the Vietnamese Campaign Medal with Device. Petitioner further contends that after honorably completing his first combat tour of duty and returning to to deploy for a second tour his behavior abruptly changed, leading to uncharacteristic incidents of misconduct. According to the Petitioner, under current military procedures, he would have received a medical discharge based on his PTSD. He states that his discharge was due to behavior caused by PTSD at a time when PTSD was not yet a recognized medical diagnosis. The Petitioner also provided factual information supporting a post-service clemency contention, including that after the service he married, raised six children, and rose to prominence in the newspaper business. Now he spends significant time caring for his grandchildren. e. In light of the Petitioner’s assertion of PTSD, the Board requested the reference (f) AO. The AO is considered favorable to Petitioner, and explained that, the “Petitioner provided a credible and comprehensive description of his combat traumas and resulting psychological symptoms and behavioral markers consistent with PTSD that he began to experience in-service that negatively influenced his conduct and performance, leading to his misconduct. The AO concluded, “based on the available evidence, it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence established Petitioner suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service, and his in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (f), the Board determined that the Petitioner is entitled to relief in the form of issuing him a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service that conforms with, and is consistent with, Department of Defense and Department of the Navy regulations governing characterization of discharge, which shall serve to affirm the general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service that he received under the SDRP, and which shall serve to allow for the provision of entitlements for which such a discharge may qualify, including for those benefits administered by the VA. In addition, the Board determined that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, separation authority, and separation code, shall be reflected as “Secretarial Authority.” RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his characterization of service at the time of his discharge was general (under honorable conditions), Secretarial Authority narrative reason and for Discharge, MARCORSEPMAN 6214 authority for discharge, and JFF1 SPD. That Petitioner be issued a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge Certificate. 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. Executive Director