DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4690-20 Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2021. The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, an Advisory Opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, 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). You enlisted in the Navy on 26 August 2003. Your pre-enlistment physical on 28 February 2003 and self-reported medical history both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions, symptoms, abnormalities, or history. You specifically denied ever having any history of “depression or excessive worry” on your pre-service medical history. On 22 September 2003 you underwent a psychiatric evaluation at Recruit Mental Health Department, Recruit Training Command, . Based on information you revealed during your evaluation concerning the pre-service use of antidepressant medication (Zoloft) for several months, the Medical Officer (MO) diagnosed you with “depressive disorder, not otherwise specific (NOS), existed prior to entry (EPTE).” The MO determined that your depressive disorder was evidenced by such symptoms as your: (a) depressed or irritable mood most of the day, nearly every day, (b) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness nearly daily, (c) daily fatigue or loss of energy, and (d) insomnia or hypersomnia nearly daily. The MO recommended your administrative entry level separation (ELS) due to your disqualifying psychiatric condition affecting your potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty. On 23 September 2003 you were issued a “Page 13” administrative remarks counseling sheet notifying you that you were not eligible for reenlistment due to medical reasons. On 26 September 2003 your command provided you notice that you were being administratively processed for an ELS from the Navy by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to: (a) an erroneous enlistment as evidenced by your depressive disorder, and (b) a fraudulent enlistment for failing to disclose your pre-service psychiatric treatment. You elected in writing to waive your rights to consult with counsel, submit a written statement to the separation authority, and to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of your separation. Ultimately, on 14 October 2003 you were discharged from the Navy with an uncharacterized ELS discharge given your length of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. In this regard, you were assigned the correct characterization and reentry code based on your factual situation. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor who is also a medical doctor (MD) and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, reviewed your mental health contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 14 April 2021. The MD initially observed that your in-service records contained a depressive disorder diagnosis, EPTE. The MD noted that you were referred for a medical evaluation after you divulged your undisclosed history of depression with medication treatment prior to enlistment. The MD also noted that you reported to Recruit Mental Health stating you could not cope with the stressors and rigors of boot camp and reported undisclosed psychiatric treatment for depression prior to enlistment. The MD concluded by opining that the preponderance of objective evidence established you fraudulently entered into military service with an undisclosed preexisting depressive disorder (with history of treatment), experienced an exacerbation of your preexisting depressive disorder during routine recruit training, were properly diagnosed by the Recruit Mental Health staff with depressive disorder, NOS, and appropriately recommended for an ELS. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to your sole contention that you were diagnosed with bipolar depression and when you began seeking help for it you were recommended for discharge. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concurred with the AO and concluded that you were appropriately separated with an ELS because you clearly had a disqualifying medical condition upon entry into the Navy. Additionally, the Board determined that you had a legal, moral and ethical obligation to remain truthful on your enlistment paperwork. Had you properly and fully disclosed your pre-service mental health issues, symptoms, and/or conditions, you would have likely been disqualified from enlisting. The Board noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years. Moreover, the Board noted 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 your case. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, home loans, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your 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 your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that your conduct clearly merited your receipt of an ELS, and that such characterization was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 6/11/2021 Deputy Director