DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2231-21 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER , USN, 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 PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 (c) USD memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review 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 (e) USD memo of 25 Jul 2018 “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Advisory opinion of 17 August 2021 (3) 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 her record by corrected by upgrading her general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service to honorable. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 September 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, and references (b) through (e), which 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 24 February 2016 supplemental guidance from the Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (Carson Memo), the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (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 considered enclosure (2), a 17 August 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, a copy of which was provided to Petitioner and to which she did not respond. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and commenced a period of active duty on 10 June 1981. During her enlistment, the Petitioner received several mental health consultations and was also hospitalized for Type B Hepatitis. On 2 March 1982, the Petitioner was notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing by reason of unsuitability – personality disorder, and her rights in connection therewith. On 4 March 1982, a Navy medical professional completed a psychological report concerning the Petitioner and found that the Petitioner was egocentric, immature, and aggressive, with acting out tendencies. On 25 March 1982, the Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from her appointed place of duty. A 29 March 1982 psychiatric report described Petitioner’s potential for future service as “non­existent.” On 2 April 1982, her commanding officer recommended that she be discharged with an honorable characterization of service. In his transmittal letter, her commanding officer explained that every possible resource had been expended to assist the Petitioner in acclimating to life in the Navy, and that she had “received countless hours of personal counselling from every member in her chain of command.” Further, according to her commanding officer, she had “received considerable professional counselling through the local CAAC and medical facilities plus two psychiatric consultations. These efforts and the inordinate amount of time spent with her have produced no change in her behavior. She consistently reacts hysterically whenever her desires are not met, or are in conflict with the realities of her military duties. Her outbursts are extremely detrimental to office and command efficiency and morale.” On 27 April 1982, despite her commanding officer’s recommendation that she receive an honorable discharge, she was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. c. In her petition, the Petitioner contends that he issues leading to her personality disorder diagnosis were directly related to events caused Navy medical professionals. She contends that she was distraught and stressed from her medical conditions, and she believes her diagnosis of Hepatitis B was delayed “for many months.” She further states that she did not receive support from her command due to her repeated visits to medical. Petitioner provided several excerpts from her service record in support of her petition. d. As a result of the Petitioner’ contentions involving a mental health condition, the Board sought the reference (f) AO, which is considered unfavorable to Petitioner. The AO explained: A review of available in-service medical records did not contain conclusive evidence that the diagnosis and treatment for Hepatitis B was delayed for ‘many months.’ Prior to her 12/18/81 hospitalization, following two weeks of symptoms prior to her presentation indicating possible hepatitis, she had been evaluated and treated for routine sick call presentations, as well as OB-GYN related conditions (to include hospitalization for spontaneous abortion), without a pattern of clinical indicators specific to Hepatitis. Additionally, though she claimed PTSD/Other Mental Health Condition, she did not provide any description of symptoms that would meet the criteria for PTSD or other mental health conditions, how those symptoms interfered with her ability to function, or related to her in-service performance/misconduct. e. The AO concluded, “it is my considered medical opinion the preponderance of objective evidence failed to establish Petitioner suffered from PTSD or other unfitting mental health conditions at the time of her military service, or her in-service misconduct could be attributed to PTSD or other unfitting mental health conditions.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (e), as well as the enclosure (2) AO, the Board determined that the Petitioner is entitled to relief. In reaching its finding, the Board acknowledged the unfavorable finding of the AO, but the Board considered several factors in favor of granting Petitioner’s request. At the outset, the Board considered that the Petitioner received only one nonjudicial punishment, after her notification of discharge processing, for being absent from her appointed place of duty, for which she received a reprimand, with other punishment suspended. And, despite this relatively minor nonjudicial punishment, her commanding officer recommended that she receive an honorable characterization of service. In addition, the Board noted that the Petitioner received a diagnosis of one or more medical conditions while she was in-service, which could reasonably cause levels of anxiety, which may have resulted in her repeated contact with the medical department. With respect to the narrative reason and authority for her separation, the Board determined that a personality disorder designation may carry with it a social stigma, and the Board agreed that changing these to Secretarial Authority was appropriate in order to remove any such stigma. Accordingly, after a careful review of all of the facts of record including a review of the Petitioner’s service record, the Board determined that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that the Petitioner’s characterization of service at discharge was honorable, Secretarial Authority narrative reason and authority for separation; and JFF separation code. That Petitioner be issued an Honorable Certificate of Discharge. That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 10/3/2021