Docket No: 6274-20 Ref: Signature date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 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,” of 25 Jul 18 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) DD Form 214 (3) Marine Corps Engineer Center Memo, subj: Notification of Separation Proceedings, 1900/2, LEG of 20 Feb 13 (4) NAVMC 118(11), Administrative Remarks, dtd 30 Jan 13 (5) NAVMC 118(11), Administrative Remarks, dtd 14 Feb 13 (6) Petitioner Memo, subj: Respondent Statement Regarding Pending Administrative Separation ICO [Petitioner], dtd 14 Feb 13 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 an upgrade to her “RE-4” reenlistment code so that she can seek reenlistment in the military. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error or injustice on 10 February 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 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 interest of justice to consider Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. The Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 18 June 2012. See enclosure (2). d. On 30 January 2013, Petitioner was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood by a clinical psychologist at the Naval Hospital . See enclosure (3). She was counseled concerning this diagnosis, and was advised not to intentionally seek to harm herself or others and to seek assistance. She was also warned that failure to take corrective action for her behavioral deficiencies may result in judicial or adverse administrative action, including but not limited to administrative separation. See enclosure (4). e. On 14 February 2013, Petitioner was again counseled regarding her Adjustment Disorder diagnosis, and was advised to follow the advice/regimen of medical officers and to seek assistance. She acknowledged that she was being processed for administrative separation and that she may submit a written rebuttal. See enclosure (5). f. In response to her 14 February 2013 counseling, Petitioner stated that she did not desire to remain in the Marine Corps because she had problems with depression and the environment was not suitable for her to cope with those issues. See enclosure (6). g. By memorandum dated 20 February 2013, Petitioner was notified that she was being processed for administrative separation for the convenience of the government based on Petitioner’s diagnosed Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. See enclosure (3). h. On 1 March 2013, Petitioner was separated from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service for a “condition, not a disability.” Her assigned reentry code was RE-04. See enclosure (2). i. Petitioner contends that she is mentally and emotionally ready to rejoin the military, and provided a letter from her therapist supporting this statement. She explained that the issues which resulted in her separation from the Marine Corps arose out of her relative youth and immaturity, and her mentally and physically abusive relationship with her then-husband. That marriage has ended, and she states that she has since matured and holds a steady job in law enforcement. Finally, she states that she has already created a family care plan for her daughter, which was a concern while she was in the Marine Corps. MAJORITY CONCLUSION: After careful consideration and review of all the evidence of record, the Majority of the Board determined that relief is warranted in Petitioner’s case. In accordance with reference (b), the Majority considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice. In this regard, the Majority considered, among other factors, the evidence that Petitioner was the victim of physical and sexual abuse by her former husband and Petitioner’s assertion that her abusive marriage contributed to the issues which resulted in her separation from the Marine Corps; the statement of Petitioner’s therapist that she is mentally and emotionally capable of rejoining the military; Petitioner’s contributions to her community, to include her post-service work with the Boys and Girls Club and more recently with the Department of Public Safety; the character letters submitted by Petitioner; and Petitioner’s relative youth and immaturity at the time of her discharge. Based upon this review, the Majority determined that the circumstances which resulted in her RE-4 reentry code have changed, and that the interests of justice warrant relief that would enable Petitioner to seek reenlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces. Accordingly, the Majority determined that Petitioner’s reentry code should be changed to RE-3G, which accurately reflects the reason for Petitioner’s separation but would permit her to reenlist with a waiver from whatever military service she may seek to join. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends the following corrective action to Petitioner’s naval service record: That Petitioner’s reentry code be changed to RE-3G, and that she be issued a DD Form 215 reflecting this change. That no further corrective action be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The Minority of the Board also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice in accordance with reference (b). However, in light of Petitioner’s mental health findings during her Marine Corps service, the Minority determined that Petitioner’s RE-4 reentry code was issued without error or injustice, and that a change is not warranted under the totality of the circumstances. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority recommends that no corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval service 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.