BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5544-20 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 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 21 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 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, 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 3 July 2003. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical examination on 4 December 2002 and self-reported medical history noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions or symptoms. e. Some of the administrative separation (Adsep) documents are not in the Petitioner’s electronic service record. However, based on the information contained on the DD Form 214, the Board determined that Petitioner’s command initiated Adsep proceedings by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the Petitioner incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. The lowest eligible discharge characterization Petitioner could have received was General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN). Ultimately, on 13 February 2004 Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a GEN discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. The Board specifically noted on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Personality Disorder.” f. In short, Petitioner contended that he was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder and instead was suffering from diagnosed mental health issues on active duty. The Petitioner provided evidence that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined he has a service-connected disability and rated him with a 70% disability rating beginning in December 2019 for persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) with anxious distress, early onset, with persistent major depressive episode, moderate and trichotillomania (previously rated as PTSD with trichotillomania). g. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO on 9 April 2021. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that the VA Decision Rating letter gave credibility to Petitioner’s contention he exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service and that his personality disorder may have been diagnosed in error. CONCLUSION: Upon review and liberal consideration of all the evidence of record and in light of the favorable AO and the documented service-connected disability determination, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants 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 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 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-4 reentry code. 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. 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. 3 5/26/2021