DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4897-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , XXX-XX-, USN 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 (NR20210004897) (2) BCNR, Advisory Opinion of 16 Sep 21 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting an upgrade to his other than honorable discharge. Enclosures (1)-(2) and references (a) through (e) apply. 2. The Board consisting of Mr. , Mr. , and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 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, to include the 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 qualified mental health provider. 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. During the enlistment screening process, Petitioner completed a Report of Medical Examination on 20 December 1996, in which he denied previous hospitalization. Petitioner subsequently enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 June 1997. d. On 18 December 1998, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 86 (unauthorized absence), Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), and Article 134 (false or unauthorized pass). On 4 June 1999, Petitioner received a second NJP for underage drinking and drunk and disorderly conduct. On 19 June 1999, Petitioner received a third NJP for underage drinking. On 25 February 2000, Petitioner received a fourth NJP for wrongful possession of a controlled substance and failure to obey a lawful order. e. On 28 February 2000, Petitioner was notified that administrative separation proceedings were being initiated against him. Petitioner waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board. Pursuant to information reflected in Message Traffic, Petitioner was recommended for administrative separation on the basis of Misconduct Due to a Pattern of Misconduct, Misconduct due to Drug Abuse, and Misconduct Due to Commission of a Serious Offense. f. On 30 March 2000, Petitioner was discharged on the basis of Misconduct and received an other than honorable discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. g. In his application to the Board, Petitioner requests an upgrade to his other than honorable discharge to reflect an honorable characterization of service. Petitioner states that he is currently diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but began having psychological and mental problems at an early age. He states that he worked hard in the Navy and was assigned to the . He contends that he struggled both in high school and the Navy often being verbally abused. In support of his application, he provides a 30 December 1991 (pre-service) Neuropsychological Evaluation which stated that Petitioner was admitted to the Haven Hospital at age 13 because of increasing behavior problems. h. As part of the review process, a Mental Health Advisor reviewed Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from a mental health condition which may have mitigated his in-service misconduct. The Advisory Opinion found that Petitioner’s post-service diagnosis of a mental health condition indicates his in-service symptoms could have been the onset of his bipolar disorder. The Advisory Opinion further stated that it is possible that Petitioner’s military service exacerbated his prior-service mental health symptoms. However, the Advisory Opinion noted that the in-service exacerbation of symptoms does not mitigate his non-disclosure of previous mental health symptoms and failure to disclose a likely disqualifying mental health condition that prevented the Navy from having the opportunity to complete an adequate screening. CONCLUSION The Board reviewed Petitioner’s request in accordance with references (b) through (e), and carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in his case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. The Board noted that Petitioner’s 20 December 1996 Report of Medical Examination failed to disclose his pre-service hospitalization for behavior problems or his Neuropsychological Evaluations of December 1991. The Board considered that had this failure to disclose been discovered during Petitioner’s active duty service, the Navy could have initiated discharge proceedings against Petitioner on the basis of fraudulent entry or enlistment. The Board also noted that Petitioner’s service record reflects four NJPs for various infractions to include underage drinking, wrongful possession, and failure to obey a lawful order. The Board considered the analysis and findings of the Advisory Opinion and substantively concurred with its determination that Petitioner’s mental health condition may have been exacerbated by military service. The Board carefully reviewed the Neuropsychological Evaluation and noted that Petitioner was found to struggle with attentional process which presented as having severe difficulty in organizing unordered information and frequently failing to recognize what is important and having poor processing of verbal input and poor organization of output. The Board found that Petitioner’s in-service misconduct was likely mitigated by his mental health condition. The Board also determined that the nature of Petitioner’s struggles (specifically poor processing) may have impacted his completion of the Report of Medical Examination during the enlistment process, thereby mitigating his failure to disclose a pre-service hospitalization and psychological evaluation. However, in consideration of the frequency and nature of Petitioner’s misconduct as reflected in his numerous NJPs, the Board found that Petitioner is entitled to a general discharge and not an honorable characterization of service. Furthermore, the Board found that Petitioner is entitled to a change to his narrative reason for separation along with a change to his SPD code and separation authority to remove reference to his in-service misconduct, or a change to his RE-4. The Board found that in light of Petitioner’s NJPs and the chain of command’s initiation of administrative separation proceedings against him that Petitioner’s current narrative reason, his SPD code, his separation authority and his RE-4 were issued without error or injustice and does not merit corrective action. In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 30 March 2000, Petitioner was issued a general discharge. The Board determined that no further corrective action should be taken. 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. 10/17/2021 Executive Director