From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:      Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER  , XXX-XX-, 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) 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 4 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 record by corrected by upgrading his characterization of discharge.  As described below, the Board recommended granting the Petitioner relief by upgrading his discharge characterization to a bad conduct discharge from a dishonorable discharge, as well as additional relief in the form of changing his narrative reason, authority for separation, and separation code to reflect Secretarial Authority. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of Messrs. , , and  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 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 considered reference (f), the 4 August 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, which was included verbatim on the brief sheet in his matter. 
 
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 13 September 1985.  On 19 December 1989, the Petitioner was convicted by a summary court-martial of unlawfully hitting, choking, and pushing a lance corporal, and communicating a threat to kill.  On 10 July 1990, he received nonjudicial punishment for uttering a bad check in the amount of $216.  On 1 October 1990, he received a written warning concerning his failure to maintain funds in his checking account.  On 15 August 1991, he was convicted by a general court-martial of uttering bad checks totaling totaling $4,275 and communicating a threat.  As part of his sentence, he received the imposition of a dishonorable discharge.  On 8 March 1994, he was so discharged. 
 
     c.  In 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with this Board, asserting that he had a mental health condition that mitigated his misconduct.  On 19 November 2020, this Board denied his request, concurring with the AO at that time, finding that there was insufficient evidence that he experienced a mental health condition during his military service to which his in-service misconduct could be attributed to a mental health condition. 
 
     d.  The Petitioner contends that he suffered from PTSD after he saw four Marines die in a helicopter crash in 1986 while he was stationed at .  He states he never told anyone about his feelings because he did not want to appear to be weak.  He further contends that, while he was stationed in , he was subjected to discrimination  and he was ridiculed because of his speech impediment. 
 
     e.  In connection with his assertions of a mental health condition, the Board requested, and received, the reference (f) AO.  According to the AO: 
 
Although the records do not link his military misconduct to his bipolar disorder, they do describe manic symptoms consistent with Petitioner’s misconduct of bad checks and intent to defraud. Bipolar disorder is hallmarked by manic or hypomanic episode, which are episodes where a person may engage in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (i.e., unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretion).  Petitioner was at the age of onset for such symptoms/disorder.  In contrast, Petitioner’s misconduct of assault and communicating a threat is less likely attributable to bipolar disorder given his reported history of anger issues.  Notes from [his treating provider] reported anger issues dating back to childhood, “…used to fight with children a lot in school, ‘they’d pick on me, I have been aggressive since then.’  He also reported approximately 10 arrests for domestic violence and two stalking charges.  Petitioner exhibited behaviors indicative of a mental health condition that would mitigate some, but not all of his misconduct. For example, his communicating a threat and assault would not be attributed to a mental health condition. In contrast, his bad checks (1990) and intent to defraud (1991) are consistent with a manic/hypomanic episode of a bipolar disorder.    
 
   f.  The AO concluded, “the available evidence indicated Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and some of his misconduct may be mitigated by his mental health condition.” 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (f) and the enclosures, the Board determined that, with respect to the relief that Petitioner requested, there exists an error or injustice warranting relief.  Specifically, the Board believed that the Petitioner was due a measure of clemency. The Board believed that, while a dishonorable discharge was authorized for the crimes of which the Petitioner was found guilty, relief in the form of upgrading to a bad conduct discharge was warranted based on all of the facts and circumstances.  Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade his discharge characterization from a dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge as well as additional relief in the form of changing his narrative reason, authority for separation, and separation code to reflect Secretarial Authority. 
 
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 a Bad Conduct Discharge characterization of service, Determination of Service Secretary – Secretary of the Navy Plenary Authority narrative reason for separation, MARCORSEPMAN para 6214 separation authority, JFF1 SPD Code, and RE-4 reeenlistment code. 
 
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