DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7445-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER MBR ,USMC Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 (b) Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 5220 CORB: 002 of 23 June 2021 (c) Director CORB letter 5220 CORB: 001 of 30 June 2021 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 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 place him on the disability retirement list and upgrade his characterization of service to Honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of Ms. , Mr. , and Mr. , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 September 2021, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 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. Petitioner entered active duty with the Marine Corps in April 2017. On 20 September 2018, Petitioner was medically evaluated after expressing suicidal ideations. At that time, he reported two previous suicide related incidents during his junior year in high school prior to entering the Marine Corps. After receiving treatment, Petitioner was determined to be psychiatrically fit for duty with no limitations. Subsequently, Petitioner was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder on 19 December 2018. He later entered and completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment in April 2019. The following month, Petitioner was notified of administrative separation processing for condition not a disability based on his adjustment disorder diagnosis. While pending separation, he was promoted to E4 and medically cleared for separation in June 2019. On 25 August 2019, Petitioner was discharged for condition not a disability and assigned a General characterization of service. Post-discharge, his medical provider certifies that he is being treated for Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. c. Petitioner filed an application with this Board arguing that he was unfit for Major Depressive Disorder at the time of his discharge. He also argued that he served honorably without any misconduct and met the criteria for an Honorable characterization of service. d. In references (b) and (c), advisory opinions issued in the case concluded that insufficient evidence exists to support Petitioner’s placement on the disability retirement list. Specifically, the opinions state relief is not warranted in Petitioner case “due to the lack of sufficient objective evidence that any of the petitioner’s numerous general and mental health related care providers felt extended periods of limited duty, much less formal referral to the Department of the Navy (DON) Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) was indicated… had referral to the DON PEB occurred, the likely result would have been a finding of fit to continue Naval service.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner met the criteria for an Honorable characterization of service based on his superior performance while on active duty and the lack of any negative counseling or misconduct in his record. The Board noted Petitioner was promoted to E4 two months prior to his discharge and possessed proficiency and conduct marks to qualify for an Honorable characterization of service. Despite the Board’s determination that an injustice exists with Petitioner’s characterization of service, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support his placement on the disability retirement list. In making this finding, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions in his case. While the Board does not dispute Petitioner’s Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis, they concluded insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that he was unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating as a result of his Major Depressive Disorder. The Board relied on his positive performance and promotion to E4 just prior to his discharge as objective evidence of Petitioner’s ability to perform his military duties. In addition, the Board noted Petitioner was medically cleared for separation on 5 June 2019. The Manual of the Medical Department Chapter 15-20 requires separation examinations and evaluations for active duty members and states “comprehensive evaluations are conducted for the purposes of ensuring that Service members have not developed any medical conditions while in receipt of base pay that might constitute a disability that should be processed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and to ensure Servicemembers are physically qualified for recall to additional periods of active duty. Thus, the standards for being physically qualified to separate are the same as those being qualified to continue active duty Service … .” Based on this evidence, the Board agreed with the advisory opinions that had Petitioner been referred to the PEB, he would have been found fit. While the Board considered whether this finding was inconsistent with the Marine Corps’ decision to administratively separate Petitioner for his adjustment disorder, the Board ultimately concluded it was not. The evidence documents that Petitioner suffered from alcohol abuse issues as evidenced by his need for alcohol rehabilitation treatment and post-discharge treatment. In the Board’s opinion, this behavior was consistent with his adjustment disorder diagnosis and supports the Marine Corps decision to discharge him for the convenience of the government to prevent future similar issues. Accordingly, the Board concluded insufficient evidence of error or injustice exists to place him on the disability retirement list. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing Petitioner’s characterization of service to Honorable vice General under Honorable conditions. Petitioner will be issued a new DD Form 214 consistent with this change. 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 Regulation, 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. 9/23/2021 Deputy Director