Docket No: 9079-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER USN, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) 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 August 2017 (c) USECDEF Memo, “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 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190009079 of 7 Dec 2020 (4) Rebuttal to the Advisory Opinion 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 naval record be corrected to reflect “secretarial authority” as the narrative reason for separation and “RE-1” as the reentry code. 2. The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 January 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 a qualified mental health provider and the rebuttal to the AO received on 8 January 2021. 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 Navy on 26 May 1999. On 4 June 1999, he was diagnosed with personality disorder, with borderline features, and recommended for entry level separation because of the disqualifying psychiatric condition and his unsuitability for continued training. d. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a personality disorder. After he waived his procedural rights, the discharge authority directed Petitioner be discharged with an uncharacterized entry level separation due to erroneous enlistment. Petitioner was discharged on 11 June 1999 and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. e. Petitioner contends the following: 1) In his statement, Petitioner takes full responsibility for the statements made to mental health personnel that led to his discharge. Specifically, he understands that the false claims he made about a history of issues including anger issues, depression, and anxiety were a mistake on his part. He realizes the gravity of his errors. However, Petitioner contends it is essential to understand his mindset at the time he made these claims to mental health personnel. 2) Petitioner explains that his dream was to become a SEAL, and he pursued his dream by undergoing an arduous and extended process to receive a medical waiver. He contends he was assured by his recruiter that his mild form of Duane’s Retraction Syndrome would not preclude him from training to become a SEAL. Barely into basic training, Petitioner explains that he was informed that his dream of becoming a SEAL was effectively dead. He contends that his fragile mindset at the time, his young age, and the distress he was experiencing mitigate the statements that led to his discharge. 3) Petitioner contends his post-service accomplishments warrant a correction to his record. Specifically, he graduated from the with a degree in health education, earned a nursing degree from the and is currently pursuing graduate level courses at the University of . Through the years, he has worked as a registered nurse in a trauma care unit, a firefighter and paramedic, and a health educator. Petitioner contends he is driven by a desire to serve others, which is apparent upon review of his accomplishments of the past 20 years. 4) Petitioner contends his academic achievements, professional development, service to the community, and the character letters provided, offer an exhaustive description of his true outstanding character, integrity, professionalism, and temperament. He contends that he made a rash and unwise decision 20 years ago that continue to haunt him to this day but he has more than made up for his mistakes and continues to prove he is an exceptional individual that has earned the right to have the negative information removed from his record. Petitioner further contends that despite all his stellar post-service accomplishments, he will continue to be unjustly stigmatized and prejudiced until his military records are corrected. 5) In support of his post-service record, Petitioner submitted a resume and advocacy letters from peers, supervisors, and his mother which detail his exceptional character and achievements. 6) Petitioner desires to join the U.S. Army as an officer and become a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. f. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided enclosure (3). The AO states there is nothing in the available records which indicates Petitioner was not responsible for his actions and statements at the time of the in-service mental health evaluation nor is there evidence that would have mitigated his intentional decision to provide false information. Based on the available evidence, the AO concludes that the mental health evaluation Petitioner received during recruit training was adequately documented and supported by the personal and clinical history Petitioner chose to provide. (Enclosure (3)) g. In his rebuttal to the AO, Petitioner reiterates that he is contrite about his deception during his military service. When he found out that his recruiter lied to him, he became despondent and took an easy opportunity to be discharged from the Navy without considering how his false statements would haunt him for the rest of his life. (Enclosure (4)) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board reviewed the application under the guidance provided in references (b) and (d). The Board noted that a RE-8 reentry code, which denotes “temporary medical conditions or unsatisfactory initial performance and conduct, is available to recruits assigned to Recruit Training Command for initial training. Applying liberal consideration, the Board concluded that a RE-8 reentry code is appropriate in Petitioner’s circumstances and authorized by regulatory guidance and may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained. Recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of his reentry code is feasible. However, the Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant the relief Petitioner requested regarding his narrative reason for separation. The Board, relying on the AO and applying liberal consideration, considered each of the contentions as listed above and determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice in Petitioner’s administrative separation processing, and concluded he was appropriately discharged due to erroneous enlistment. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request to change his narrative reason of separation does not merit relief. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a change to his DD Form 214, indicating his reentry code as “RE-8.” 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 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.