DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7108-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER PRIVATE XXX-XX-, USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 (b) MARCORSEPMAN (c) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Admin Remarks (6105), dtd 26 Jul 02 (3) Mental Health Consult, dtd 1 Aug 02 (4) USMC School of Infantry Training Command Memo, subj: Notification of Separation Proceedings, undated (5) USMC Marine Corps Base Memo, subj: Recommendation for Administrative Separation in the Case of [Petitioner], dtd 8 Oct 02 (6) DD Form 214 (7) Department of Veterans Affairs Letter, dtd 4 Oct 17 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 DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect an honorable characterization of service. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14 December 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, the Majority 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 reference (c). 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 interest of justice to consider Petitioner’s application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 15 April 2002. See enclosure (6). d. On 26 July 2002, Petitioner was counseled for a diagnosed personality disorder. This counseling statement warned Petitioner that his continued mental health issues prevent him from performing his duties, and that failure to take recommended corrective action and/or any future instances of inappropriate behavior or misconduct may result in his administrative separation. See enclosure (2). e. On 1 August 2002, Petitioner was referred for a psychiatric evaluation for “severe problmes [sic] with rage attacks and impulsivity.” This consult reflected that he was absent without leave for four days. He was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (severe), and strongly recommended for an expeditious discharge because of a severe personality disorder which makes him unable to adapt to military service. See enclosure (3). f. On 14 August 2002, Petitioner was assigned to the Medical Platoon due to mental health reasons. Petitioner was subsequently notified of that he was being recommended for administrative separation from the Marine Corps for the convenience of the government due to his personality disorder. By memorandum dated 12 September 2002, Petitioner waived his right to counsel and to submit a statement on his behalf. See enclosure (4). g. By memorandum dated 8 October 2002, Petitioner’s discharge for the convenience of the government was approved. His characterization of service was directed to be “uncharacterized.” See enclosure (5). h. Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps on 14 October 2002. The narrative reason for his separation was “Personality Disorder,” his characterization of service was “uncharacterized,” his separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6203.3,” and his reentry code was “RE-3P.” See enclosure (6). i. As part of his application, Petitioner submitted a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 4 October 2017, indicating that his service was characterized as “honorable.” See enclosure (7). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration, the Majority of the Board concluded that Petitioner should be granted partial relief. Specifically, the Board found that the inclusion of Petitioner’s mental health diagnosis in the narrative reason for his separation could result in an unnecessary and unwarranted stigmatization of the Petitioner in the future, and therefore represents an injustice. Accordingly, the Majorityfound that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation should be changed to avoid this potential stigma. The Majority did not, however, find any injustice in Petitioner’s uncharacterized characterization of service. Noting that reference (b) provides for an uncharacterized characterization of service in cases where individuals are notified of their separation within the first 180 days of their separation, the Majority found no potential stigma or injustice with this accurate characterization of Petitioner’s service. The Majority was not persuaded by the presentation of evidence reflecting that the VA characterized Petitioner’s service as honorable, as such a characterization may be made for VA purposes only. The Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded in accordance with reference (c). However, in finding Petitioner’s service characterization to be consistent with governing regulations under the circumstances and no stigma attached to the Petitioner’s uncharacterized service, the Board simply did not find that the interests of justice warranted an upgrade. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board recommends the following partial corrective action on Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN Par 6214,” that his separation code was “JFF1,” and that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority.” That no further changes be made to the record. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. MINORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration, the Minority of the Board found no error or injustice warranting a correction to Petitioner’s naval record. The Minority found that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation and characterization of service conformed to the regulations in effect at the time, and did not agree with the Majority opinion that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation represents an injustice. Like the Majority, the Minority also considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief was warranted in the interests of justice in accordance with reference (c), but it concurred that no such relief was warranted in Petitioner’s case. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority recommends that no changes be made to Petitioner’s 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Decision: MAJORITY Recommendation Approved (Partial Relief – Change Narrative Reason for Separation)