DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2075-19 Ref: Signature Date From:Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) USD 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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Mental Health Condition Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190002075 of 29 January 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) requesting a change to his narrative reason for separation and reentry code following their separation for an adjustment disorder. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 April 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of his naval service and medical records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy medical 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. Regarding the Petitioner’s request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. c. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 5 April 2016. On 1 June 2017, the Mental Health Clinic at Naval Hospital recommended the Petitioner’s administrative separation for a diagnosed adjustment disorder. The recommendation stated that Petitioner’s condition impairs his abilityto function effectively in the naval environment and interferes with his performance of duty. d. On 6 June 2017, the Petitioner was notified of proposed administrative separation (Adsep) by reason of convenience of the government as evidenced by his diagnosed adjustment disorder interfering with the performance of duty. Petitioner elected his rights to consult with counsel, submit statements on his own behalf, and general court-martial convening authority review of his case. Ultimately, on 20 October 2017, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an honorable discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. The Board specifically noted on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Condition, Not a Disability,” and his separation code was “JFV,” which corresponds to and describes an Adsep case involving a condition not a disability interfering with the performance of duty. e. On 29 August 2018, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) determined that Petitioner’s discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. The NDRB noted Petitioner was evaluated on two separate occasions by two psychologists who both concluded independently that the Petitioner suffered from an adjustment disorder and did not have the coping skills to adequately cope with the stressors of military life. The NDRB concluded that Petitioner’s command acted well within its authority to process him for an Adsep due to the existence of the adjustment disorder. f. As part of the review process, the BCNR Mental Health Provider (MHP) reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 29 January 2020. The MHP observed that Petitioner was evaluated by two separate psychologists during his military service, both of whom concurred with the diagnosis of adjustment disorder and recommendation of administrative separation. The MHP noted that it was reasonable to consider that Petitioner’s adjustment disorder, which was related to his difficulty with military service, would resolve when he was no longer in military service. The MHP concluded by opining that the Petitioner’s in-service adjustment disorder diagnosis was not erroneous. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in reference (b). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, theBoard felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for a diagnosed adjustment disorder. Describing Petitioner’s service in this manner attaches a considerable negative and unnecessary stigma, and fundamental fairness and medical privacy concerns dictate a change. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to label Petitioner’s discharge as being for a mental health-related condition, and that certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. The Board did not grant part of the primary relief requested by Petitioner, namely, to change the existing reentry code from “RE-4” to “RE-1.” However, the Board determined a change to Petitioner’s reentry/reenlistment code was instead warranted to “RE-3G.” The Board noted this reentry code corresponds to: “condition (not a disability) interfering with the performance of duty,”and is the appropriate designation in cases such as Petitioner’s absent any evidence to the contrary. The Board further noted that the RE-3G reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained, and that recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of the reentry code is feasible. Accordingly, the Board concluded the “RE-3G” reentry code was the correct code based on his circumstances. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s adjustment disorder diagnosis and Adsep. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including Petitioner’s contentions that included, but were not limited to: that his adjustment disorder diagnosis was in error, that his Adsep was procedurally defective, that his Adsep was unfair at the time, that his Adsep is inequitable now, and that the Petitioner no longer suffers from an adjustment disorder. However, even applying the liberal consideration standard, the Board found that Petitioner’s contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant invalidating his Adsep or granting any additional relief other than what was prescribed below. The Board noted that the Petitioner underwent a course of mental health treatment over several months, and that his mental health providers determined he was unable to adjust to the stressors of military life and uniformly recommended his Adsep. The Board further noted the Adsep recommendation from the Mental Health Clinic, Naval Hospital dated 1 June 2017, which stated: was evaluated at the mental health clinic at Naval Hospital and diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. He has received a course of mental health treatment for this condition from February 2017 to present, and his mental health providers feel that all avenues of medical treatment have been exhausted…Due to his inability to adjust to the stressors of military life, it is necessary that be [a]dministratively [s]eparated from the United States Navy…The member’s condition impairs his ability to function effectively in the naval environment and interferes with the performance of duty. The Board also noted the Adsep recommendation of Petitioner’s Commanding Officer who unequivocally stated, in part: Since reporting aboard he has shown no progress in his professional development, his ability to assimilate into the Navy or to establish functioning relationships with any of his shipmates. He is demanding in his personal wants and prone to fits of tantrum in reaction to basic military discipline…In the seven months since arriving, he has not shown the aptitude or desire to perform even the most minimal of tasks expected of junior Sailors in my command. During the same time period, on three separate occasions, he has openly communicated a desire to kill himself as well as expressing a desire that everyone in his division be “raped and mutilated.” Given the today’s counter-culture of media attention through violent response I am, and will remain, intolerant of these outbursts; no matter how innocuous they may seem. More importantly, these are indices of Airman D’s inability to effectively control his [a]djustment [d]isorder such that he can conform and contribute to the Naval [service]…Airman D has been provided mental health care, professional counseling, and Chaplain services. Even after months of personal attention and one-on-one care, he has shown no progress. Indeed, “his mental health providers feel that all avenues of treatment have been exhausted.” He continues to be an administrative burden, a drain on leadership resources and a disruption to good order and discipline. Further, there is no evidence that Airman D can overcome his “inability to adjust to the stressors of military life,” and as such, common sense dictates that as this stress mounts, he will continue to act out, leading to more stress and greater outbursts, in a destructive and dangerous self-feeding cycle…After seven months of effort, and numerous attempts at professional help, Airman D has shown no progress in professional or personal development. In multiple ways and over multiple instances, he has proven himself unable to conform to the standards of Naval [s]ervice. His continued service would be detrimental to his own well-being and would detract from my command’s and the Navy’s, mission readiness…I recommend that Airman D immediately be released from Naval [s]ervice... (emphasis added) The Board determined that the Petitioner’s behavior and diagnosis clearly demonstrated a prima facie case of a mental health-related condition significantly interfering with the performance of duty. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s Adsep was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” the narrative reason for separation bechanged to “Secretarial Authority,”and the reentry code be changed to “RE-3G.” That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 13 February 2019. 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.