From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USN, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) DD Form 214 (3) Head, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital Memo Code 303, subj: [Petitioner], 26 Mar 91 (4) Enlisted Performance Record (5) BCNR Memo, subj: Advisory Opinion ICO [Petitioner], 1 Apr 21 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 characterization of service be upgraded to honorable. Upon review of his records, it was discovered that Petitioner received an honorable discharge upon his separation from the Navy due to a personality disorder. Given the basis for his discharge, however, the Board proceeded to review Petitioner’s record for any other error or injustice. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error or injustice on 14 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 the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include reference (b). 3. The Board, having reviewed all of the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error or 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 Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty service on 25 June 1987. See enclosure (2). d. On 25 March 1991, Petitioner received a psychiatric evaluation which determined that he suffered from a severe, longstanding Borderline Personality Disorder which existed prior to his enlistment and was of such severity as to render him incapable of serving adequately in the Navy. As a result of this evaluation and diagnosis, the Head of the Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital , “strongly recommended that [Petitioner] be expeditiously separated administratively.” See enclosure (3). e. On 14 May 1991, Petitioner was honorably discharged from the Navy by reason of a personality disorder. 1 He was assigned a reentry code of RE-4. See enclosure (2). 1 Petitioner’s records do not include the documentation pertaining to his administrative separation proceedings. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board applied the presumption of regularity to establish that Petitioner was properly notified and afforded all rights to him before he was administratively separated for convenience of the government based upon this diagnosed personality disorder. 2 Petitioner mistakenly requested that his other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. He apparently did not realize that his service was characterized as honorable upon his discharge. There is no evidence in the record which would provide context to Petitioner’s contention that he was misdiagnosed because he put his family before the Navy. f. Petitioner’s overall conduct trait average during his enlistment was 3.60. See enclosure (4). Navy regulations in place at the time of his discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (personal behavior) for a fully honorable characterization of service. g. Petitioner contends that he did not have a personality disorder. Rather, he asserts that this diagnosis was made because he “put [his] family before the Navy.”2 He also contends that he has been a productive member of society since his discharge, has been a school teacher for seven years, and has actively helped Veterans. See enclosure (1). h. Petitioner’s application and records were reviewed by a qualified mental health professional who provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration. Based upon this review, the AO found that that the preponderance of the evidence failed to establish that Petitioner’s in-service diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder was made in error. See enclosure (5). CONCLUSION: Upon careful review and consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s warrants relief. The Board found no error or injustice in the Petitioner’s original discharge for personality disorder, as this was a valid basis for discharge at the time and Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to support his claim that his diagnosis was invalid. Despite this finding, the Board unanimously determined that continuing to describe the narrative reason for Petitioner’s separation as “personality disorder” constitutes an injustice. Such a description attaches a negative and unnecessary stigma to the Petitioner, and impedes his ability to benefit from his otherwise honorable service without unnecessarily revealing otherwise private medical information. Additionally, it is unlikely that Petitioner would be administratively discharged for a personality disorder today, as his conduct trait average suggests that his personality disorder did not significantly impair his performance of duties at the time. Accordingly, the Board unanimously concluded that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation should be changed, and that all references to his diagnosed personality disorder should be removed from his DD Form 214. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Although the Board was unanimous in its determination that all references to Petitioner’s diagnosed personality disorder should be removed from his DD Form 214, the Board was not in agreement with regard to Petitioner’s reentry code. After careful review and consideration, the Majority of the Board determined that Petitioner’s reentry code should be changed in the interests of justice. In making this determination, the Majority found that the presence of a code indicating that Petitioner was not eligible for reenlistment upon his discharge unnecessarily presents the potential for negative implications to be drawn from what appears to have been otherwise honorable service. Further, the negative reenlistment code serves no further continuing purpose, as Petitioner is currently ineligible for reenlistment due to his age. Accordingly, the Majority determined that Petitioner’s reentry code should be changed in the interests of justice to be consistent with the other changes recommended by the Board. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record in the interest of justice: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority”; that his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”; that his separation code was “JFF”; and that his reentry code was “RE-1J.” That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s naval record. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. MINORITY CONCLUSION: Although the Minority concurred with the determination that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation should be changed in the interests of justice, it found no material error or injustice in Petitioner’s reentry code. In this regard, the Minority found that Petitioner’s reentry code of RE-4 was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, since it was not in the Navy’s interest to permit Petitioner to reenlist subsequent to his discharge for a personality disorder which rendered him incapable of serving adequately. Further, given the other changes being recommended, the Minority found the risk of any negative implications being drawn from his reentry code to be minimal. Accordingly, the Minority found no material error or injustice in Petitioner’s reentry code. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority of the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record in the interest of justice: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority”; that his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164”; and that his separation code was “JFF.” That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s naval record. 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 titled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 6/2/2021 Executive Director ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: MAJORITY Recommendation Approved (Change to Secretarial Authority; Change Reentry Code to RE-1J) 6/16/2021 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)