From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 

To: Secretary of the Navy 


Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 


Ref: 
(a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
(b) SECDEF memo of 3 Sep 14, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by 
Veterans Claiming PTSD” 
(c) PDUSD memo of 24 Feb 16, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests 
Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” 
(d) PDUSD memo of 25 Aug 17, “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” 

Encl: 
(1) DD Form 149 
(2) Subject’s naval record (excerpts) 
(3) Advisory Opinion dated 11 Jan 2019 

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member in the 
Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), 
requesting that his RE-3P reentry (RE) code be changed to RE-1A on his Certificate of Release 
of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), so that he may be allowed to reenlist in the 
Armed Services, in light of current guidelines as reflected in references (b) through (d). He is 
alleging he incurred a mental health condition during his military service which might have 
mitigated the circumstances that led to his general discharge. He also impliedly requested that 
his “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” (GEN) characterization of service be changed to 
“Honorable” on his DD 214. 

2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s 
allegations of error and injustice on 8 April 2019, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that 
the partial 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 
Petitioner’s naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an 11 January 2019 
advisory opinion (AO) provided by a naval Mental Health professional. 

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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 20 July 
2015. On 14 April 2016, a medical officer reviewed his medical records for post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), and stated that he had never deployed, and 
had never been in combat in theater during his time in the Marine Corps. He was recommended 
for discharge due to an acute “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.” On 18 April 2016, 
his commanding officer notified him that he was being administrative separated from the Marine 
Corps for the convenience of the government for a “Condition Not a Disability (Certain medical 
Disorders-Adjustment Disorders).” Petitioner elected not to consult with counsel or submit a 
written statement. Petitioner did elect to obtain copies of documents that were to be forwarded 
to the separation authority. On 2 May 2016, a staff judge advocate reviewed Petitioner’s case, 
and found it to be sufficient in law and fact. On 6 May 2016, the separation authority directed 
that Petitioner receive a GEN discharge due to a condition, not a disability. On 1 June 2016, he 
was so discharged. 

 c. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the 
Secretary of Defense’s memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans 
Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014, and the “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,” memorandum of 25 August 2017. 

 d. Petitioner submitted a personal statement that he was “depressed” during his military 
service due to “family issues,” which resulted in medical evaluation and subsequent discharge 
recommendation. 

 e. As part of the review process, a Navy mental health professional reviewed Petitioner’s 
request and provided the Board an AO. The AO states, in part, that Petitioner submitted a letter 
from a civilian psychiatrist who conducted a one-time evaluation, and opined that the depressive 
episode was an isolated event resulting from severe family conflicts at the time, which were 
resolved and are not likely to recur in the future. The AO opined that, unfortunately, Petitioner 
has provided no post-service treatment records, and there is no information regarding the family 
matter which led to the depression. To AO stated that, although it appears that the depression 
was resolved at that time, there is no indication that it could not reoccur in the future. Based on 
available evidence, the AO determined that there is insufficient evidence to revise Petitioner’s 
RE code. 

f. Petitioner’s characterization of service should have been based on individual trait averages 
computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. His overall conduct trait average was 4.3. 
At the time of his service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required to be considered for a fully 
honorable characterization of service. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed Petitioner’s 
application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board 
considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by these 
policies. 

The Board’s decision is based on Petitioner’s contention that he may have suffered from an 
undiagnosed mental health condition. The Board was unable to reasonably conclude that 
Petitioner’s mental health condition may have existed at the time of his discharge, and concurred 
with the AO that, based on available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to revise Petitioner’s 
RE code. However, the Board notes that the discharge authority should have based the 
characterization of service on Petitioner’s overall individual conduct trait average, which is high 
enough for a characterization of honorable, vice under honorable conditions. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following 
partial corrective action: 

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he received an “Honorable” discharge on 
1 June 2016. 

That Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty. 

That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 

That no further relief be granted. 

That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application 
was received by the Board on 30 October 2017. 

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. 

 
Executive Director