DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2362-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER 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) PDUSD 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 (d) Advisory Opinion dtd 8 Mar 2021 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/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 by upgrading his discharge characterization from (general) under honorable conditions) to honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 May 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, and, the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding mental health conditions (Kurta Memo), reference (b), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo), reference (c). Additionally, the Board also considered the reference (d) advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. The Petitioner commenced an enlistment in the Navy on 26 March 1998. On 9 September 1998 he received a written warning for being absent without authority on three different occasions. On 17 September 1998, he was evaluated by a mental health professional. During his evaluation, he expressed dissatisfaction with continued military service, and he was performing poorly in submarine school. Petitioner did not mention claustrophobia or panic experiences to the examining psychiatrist during his evaluation. On 14 October 1998, he was notified that he was being administratively discharged due to a personality disorder. On 23 October 1998, he was discharged with a characterization of service based on his service record (2.0 trait average) of general (under honorable conditions). c. Petitioner contends that his aptitude testing during the enlistment process was not followed up with by the appropriate psychological and mental ability testing to verify whether he was a fit with Submarine service. He asserts that his claustrophobic tendencies were discovered during his introduction to the environment of Submarine Service, and they resulted in panic attacks while in the simulators. He states he inquired about the opportunity to change career fields, but was not given that option. He contends he was processed for discharge due to the claustrophobia, which was diagnosed as a personality disorder. d. In connection with the Petitioner’s assertions concerning a mental health condition while in the Navy, the Board obtained an AO, which concluded, “Petitioner was appropriately diagnosed with Adjustment and Personality Disorders in service.” The AO further concluded that “[t]here was no objective evidence to indicate command was in error choosing to administratively separate the member for unsuitability based on his diagnosed personality disorder, or that his characterization of service at discharge was improperly determined.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined that the relief the Petitioner seeks is not warranted. His characterization of service was appropriately designated based on his trait average while in service. In view of reference (c), however, the Board determined that a level of clemency is warranted in the form of changing the Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation and separation code from “Personality Disorder” to “Secretarial Authority” to remove any stigma associated with his discharge due to personality disorder. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicating that the narrative reason and authority for his separation was Secretarial Authority, and separation code was JFF. His reentry code shall remain as RE-4; and That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 5/6/2021 3