Docket No: 2940-21 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF USMC 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 MilitaryDischarge 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Advisory opinion of 26 July 2021 (3) 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 record by corrected by upgrading his discharge characterization from other than honorable to an unspecified characterization. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 September 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 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), the 24 February 2016 supplemental guidance from the Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (Carson Memo), 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), 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 considered enclosure (2), which contains the 26 July 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 served two enlistments in the Marine Corps from 13 June 1980 to 19 June 1986, receiving an honorable discharge for each enlistment. On 20 June 1986, the Petitioner reenlisted and commenced a new period of active duty. On 21 September 1987, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for being derelict in the performance of his duties and for being absent from company formation. On 29 April 1988, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment, again for being absent from formation. On 29 April 1988, the Petitioner received a Page 11 written warning concerning his violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Finally, on 13 Jun 1988, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment, again for being absent from formation. Thereafter the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing. His complete administrative separation documents are not contained in his official military personnel file (OMPF), but on 15 November 1988, a Marine Corps Staff Judge Advocate deemed the Petitioner’s discharge paperwork to be sufficient in law and fact. On 21 November 1988, the Petitioner’s Brigade Commander transmitted a recommendation that the Petitioner be discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service, and on 23 December 1988, the Petitioner was so discharged. c. The Petitioner contends that he suffered from an undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or untreated mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder, while in the service. He states he was discharged for reasons related to his conditions. d. As a result of the Petitioner’s contention concerning his mental health conditions, the Board sought the AO, which is included in enclosure (2). The AO is considered unfavorable and found that the objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed with a mental health condition, suffered from a mental health condition at the time of his military service, or that his inservice misconduct could be mitigated by a mental health condition. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (e), as well as enclosure (2), the Board that there was an injustice such that the Petitioner is entitled to relief. The Board acknowledged the findings of the AO, but determined that the Petitioner was entitled to relief based upon clemency and not based upon a mental health condition. The Board determined that the offenses for which the Petitioner was discharged, when balanced against the entirety of his service record, resulted in an unduly harsh result. Specifically, the Petitioner’s nonjudicial punishments for which he was discharged related to missing his company formation on three occasions and once being derelict in performing his duties. The Board also noted that, in a prior enlistment, the Petitioner committed misconduct arguably more severe (unauthorized absence totaling eight days), yet he received an honorable discharge for that prior enlistment. After carefully reviewing the entiretyof the Petitioner’s OMPF, the Board determined that relief was appropriate. 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 for the period ending on 23 December 1988, indicating an honorable characterization of service, Secretary of the Navy Plenary Authority narrative reason for separation, MARCORSEPMAN para 6214 separation authority, and JFF1 SPD code. Petitioner be issued an honorable 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. 9/27/2021 Executive Director