DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 0410-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD,” of 3 Sep 14 (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 TBI,” of 24 Feb 16 (d) PDUSD 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 Aug 17 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No:NR20190000410 of 11 Sep 19 letter of 7 Nov 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service and changes to her narrative reason for separation and separation code. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 March 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 her naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health provider and rebuttal response submitted by Petitioner through counsel. 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 review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 23 July 2001. During boot camp, she injured her right leg. After a time in the rehabilitation platoon, while participating in Marine Combat Training, Petitioner’s pain in her right leg returned. On 5 December 2001, she was counseled regarding her diagnosed physical condition of shin splints and returned to rehabilitation platoon. d. On 11 March 2002, Petitioner was admitted to inpatient psychiatric care and diagnosed with adjustment disorder, with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct, and personality disorder, not otherwise specified with borderline traits. On 19 March 2002, she was counseled regarding her diagnosed personality disorder, a physical condition, not a disability. On 2 April 2002, she was again counseled regarding her diagnosed personality disorder because it had significantly impaired her ability to function effectively in the Marine Corps. e. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate her from the naval service for personality disorder. After she waived her procedural rights, Petitioner’s Commanding Officer recommended administrative separation by reason of personality disorder with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service. After the staff judge advocate determined the separation was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority directed Petitioner be separated with a GEN characterization of service for personality disorder. She was discharged on 22 May 2002. At the time of discharge, her average PRO/CON marks were 4.0/4.2. f. Petitioner, through counsel, contends she was incorrectly and unjustly discharged with a GEN characterization of service. Specifically, she contends the following: 1) Petitioner contends she was wrongly diagnosed with a personality disorder. She contends she “did not have one then and does not have one now.” a) In support of her contention, Petitioner requested a psychological evaluation in October 2018 in order to obtain diagnostic clarification. The evaluating psychologist determined “this evaluation failed to identify mental health concerns that would be sufficient to meet historical, or present, criteria for a personality disorder.” b) In support of her contention that she has never and does not currently suffer from a personality disorder, Petitioner submitted evidence of her multiple university degrees, current enrollment at law school, and numerous professional achievements. 2) Petitioner contends she was improperly assigned a GEN characterization of service. She contends that her characterization was based on “hostile animus and incorrect assertions of fact” and not the chain of command’s recommendation that she receive an honorable characterization of service. g. As part of the Board’s review, a mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 11 September 2019. The AO states that although Petitioner appears to be currently “functioning well,” there is insufficient evidence that she “would not experience similar stress reactions should she return to a military environment.” h. In her rebuttal of 7 November 2019, found at enclosure (3), Petitioner’s counsel raised several points in disagreement with the AO. Specifically, counsel reiterated that the licensed psychologist that evaluated Petitioner in 2018 “did not substantiate the diagnosis of personality disorder. Indeed he concluded that she likely never met the criteria for thediagnosis.” Counsel also pointed out that the AO author appears to be more concerned with and solely addressing Petitioner’s request to change her reentry code. Additionally, Petitioner submitted advocacy letters further supporting the contention that she was incorrectly diagnosed with a personality disorder. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed her application under theguidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum is to ease the process for Veterans seeking redress and assist the Boards in reaching fair and consistent results in “these difficult cases.” The memorandum describes the difficulty Veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized” mental health conditions. The memorandum further explains that, since mental health conditions were not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many Veterans, and diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, Veterans were constrained in their arguments that mental health conditions should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct underlying their discharge. The Board, relying upon the absence of misconduct or noted poor performance and Petitioner’s final PRO/CON marks of 4.0/4.2, determined there was sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. Additionally, in the interest of justice and in light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority,” and her reentry code changed to reflect the same. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating her characterization of service as “honorable,” narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421,” and reentry code as “RE-1J.” 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 7 December 2018. 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.