DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3278-20 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) 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 make other conforming changes to his DD Form 214 following his discharge for a personality disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 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, 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 a qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to Petitioner. Although Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, Petitioner did not do so. 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. The Board determined that Petitioner’s personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 25 June 1999. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical examination and medical history noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions or symptoms. e. On 21 January 2000 Petitioner underwent a mental health evaluation at the Branch Medical Clinic . The staff psychologist diagnosed Petitioner with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, cannabis dependence (existing prior to entry (EPTE)), hallucinogen abuse (EPTE), and a personality disorder not otherwise specified with borderline features. The medical officer noted that Petitioner was not considered mentally ill, but manifested a long standing disorder of character and behavior which was of such severity as to render this individual incapable of serving adequately in the United States Navy. The medical officer strongly recommended the Petitioner’s expeditious administrative separation. f. On 26 January 2000 the Petitioner’s command initiated administrative separation proceedings by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. Petitioner waived his rights to consult with counsel, submit a statement, and for General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of his separation. Ultimately, 11 February 2000 Petitioner was discharged from the Navy for a personality disorder with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN) discharge and assigned an RE-3G reentry code. g. Based on his available service records, Petitioner’s overall conduct trait average assigned on his periodic performance evaluations during his enlistment was 3.0. Navy regulations in place at the time of his discharge required a minimum trait average of 2.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. h. In short, Petitioner contended that was administratively discharged due to mental health issues he experienced on active duty. The Petitioner provided evidence that the VA determined he has a service-connected disability and rated him with a 70% disability rating beginning in December 2019 for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (claimed as PTSD, major depression and borderline personality disorder). i. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO on 16 March 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that Petitioner’s in-service record revealed an enlistment physical free from any mental health concerns, but with an endorsement of prior marijuana use. The Ph.D. noted there was evidence of psychological/behavioral changes on active duty resulting in a referral to mental health resources and that Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and substance abuse/dependence, as well as a personality disorder. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the evidence failed to establish that the personality disorder diagnosis was erroneous or that Petitioner’s discharge characterization should be mitigated by any other mental health condition. CONCLUSION: Upon review and liberal consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes 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 believed that there was an injustice in ultimately separating the Petitioner with a GEN characterization for service. The Board observed Petitioner’s overall active duty trait average in conduct (proper military behavior) during his brief enlistment exceeded the Navy’s required minimum trait average in that category for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board also noted that there were no documented instances of misconduct or adverse counseling entries in Petitioner’s record. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been under GEN conditions. Especially in light of the Wilkie Memo, the Board concluded after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, that flawless service is not required for an honorable discharge and that a discharge upgrade is appropriate at this time. The Board also 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. The Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s RE-3G reentry code. The Board noted that the RE-3G reentry code directly corresponds to: “condition (not physical disability) interfering with the performance of duty,” and is the appropriate designation in personality disorder cases 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. The Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on the totality of his circumstances, and that such reentry code 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 character of service be changed to “Honorable,” the separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” and the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner shall 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. 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. 5/10/2021