Docket No: 1159-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER SR , USN, XXX-XX 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo) (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 February 2016 (d) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 (Kurta Memo) (e) 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 (Wilkie Memo) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with 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 naval record be corrected to upgrade his characterization of service and to make other conforming changes to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) following his discharge for a personality disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 March 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 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta 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, the Board determined that it was in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 2 September 1987. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical and medical history both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. The Petitioner expressly denied ever attempting suicide or having depression/excessive worry on his pre-service medical history. d. On 28 January 1988 Petitioner received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful regulation. Petitioner did not appeal his NJP. e. Following his disenrollment from “A” School, on 29 January 1988 Petitioner underwent a mental health evaluation for possible suicidal ideations and acute depression given his past history of suicide gesture. The Medical Officer (MO) diagnosed Petitioner with a mixed personality disorder with dependent and avoidant traits, and the MO strongly recommended an administrative separation. f. On 3 February 1988 Petitioner’s command initiated administrative separation proceedings by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of Petitioner’s diagnosed personality disorder. Petitioner waived his rights to consult with counsel and submit statements on his own behalf. Petitioner did not object to his discharge. Ultimately, on 19 February 1988 Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS) and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. The Board specifically noted on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Other Physical/Mental Conditions – Personality Disorders.” g. In short, Petitioner contended that his service was honorable and his discharge was due to mental incapacitation and disorder, and that he honored his commitment while mentally capable of doing so. The Petitioner further contended that he suffered from a mental health condition on active duty and his mental health condition mitigated the conduct leading to his ELS discharge. h. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor, who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records, and issued an AO on 22 February 2021. The MD initially observed that Petitioner provided post-discharge 2020 clinical records from a civilian psychiatric clinic containing a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, however, the MD noted that such records did not contain any clinical history regarding onset, circumstances about the diagnosis, or reference to his military service. The MD further noted that Petitioner’s in-service records did not contain evidence of a diagnosis of a mental health condition other than personality disorder, or psychological/behavioral changes indicating any other mental health condition. The MD determined that Petitioner’s post-discharge diagnoses and contention of some type of disability occurred fully thirty-two years after his brief military service, and ran counter to the available objective evidence contemporaneous to his enlistment. The MD concluded by opining that preponderance of available objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner was diagnosed or suffered from a mental health condition on active duty, or that his characterization of service could be mitigated by a mental health condition. i. In response to the AO, Petitioner submitted two separate rebuttal matters for the Board’s consideration. CONCLUSION Upon review and liberal consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos. Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board determined that it would be an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for a diagnosed character and behavior 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. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s discharge should not be labeled as being for a mental health-related condition and that certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board was not willing to upgrade the Petitioner’s discharge characterization and believed that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. The Board determined that significant negative aspects of the Petitioner’s conduct and/or performance outweighed the positive aspects of his military record during his brief active duty service. The Board noted that Petitioner had one NJP in his record and he was also disenrolled from his “A” school following initial recruit training. Moreover, the Board noted that Navy discharge policy provides that separations initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active duty will be described as ELS except when an honorable discharge is approved by the Secretary of the Navy in cases involving unusual circumstances, not applicable in Petitioner’s case. Additionally, the Board determined that Petitioner had a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to remain truthful on his enlistment paperwork. Had Petitioner properly and fully disclosed his pre-service suicide attempt and corresponding mental health history, he would have likely been disqualified from enlisting. The Board also determined that personality disorders are characterized by a longstanding pattern of unhealthy behaviors, dysfunctional relationships, and maladaptive thinking patterns. They are not conditions considered unfitting or disabling, but render service members unsuitable for military service and consideration for administrative separation. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s personality disorder was a non-disabling disorder of character and behavior, and that it should not be considered a mitigating factor in his misconduct because it did not impair Petitioner’s ability to be accountable for his actions or behaviors. Absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding Petitioner’s post-service conduct and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner’s request for an honorable characterization of service does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in Petitioner’s discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s ELS characterization 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 the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” the separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” and the separation code be changed to “JFF.” That Petitioner shall 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 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.