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) USD 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 with attachments (2) Mental Health Condition Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20180010936 of 30 August 2019 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) requesting a change to his reentry code and narrative reason for separation following their separation for a personality disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 January 2020, 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 his naval service and medical records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an advisory opinion (AO) from a mental health provider. 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Regarding the Petitioner’s request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner originally enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 5 August 1985. He reenlisted for six years on 13 March 1992. He reported for duty with the on 2 October 1997. e. Unfortunately, the administrative separation (ADSEP) documents are not in the Petitioner’s electronic service record. However, based on the information contained on the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), and the Petitioner’s own statement, the Board determined that his command initiated ADSEP proceedings by reason of convenience of the government for a condition, not a disability on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such a severity as to render the Petitioner incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. Based on Petitioner’s number of years of service, he was entitled to an ADSEP board, and the lowest eligible discharge characterization he could have received was General (Under Honorable Conditions). Ultimately, on 18 February 1998, he was discharged from the Navy with an Honorable discharge characterization and assigned an “RE-3G” reenlistment code. The Board specifically observed on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Personality Disorder,” his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 3620200,” and his separation code was “JFX,” all which correspond to and describe an ADSEP case involving a personality disorder. e. An advisory opinion was requested from a Navy mental health provider, enclosure (2), and it opined that the due to the lack of medical records it was not possible to render a medical opinion regarding a potential error in the Petitioner’s diagnosis of personality disorder. Although the AO did opine that the Petitioner’s difficulties, which resulted in his discharge, may have been more acute and less long term since he was able to serve honorably for more than twelve years. 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 his application under the guidance provided in reference (b). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for a diagnosed character and behavior disorder. Describing Petitioner’s service in this manner attaches a considerable negative and unnecessary stigma, and fundamental fairness and medical privacy concerns dictate a change. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to label the Petitioner’s discharge as being for a mental health related condition, and certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. However, the Board did not grant the primary specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change his reentry code from RE-3P. The Board initially observed that the Petitioner’s reenlistment code on his DD Form 214 is RE-3G and not RE-3P as Petitioner contends. The Board noted that the RE-3G reentry code directly corresponds to: “condition (not physical disability) interfering with the performance of duty,” and is the appropriate designation in personality disorder cases absent any evidence to the contrary. Comparatively, the RE-3P reentry code corresponds to: “physical disability (includes discharge and transfer to TDRL),” which is inapplicable to the Petitioner’s case. The Board further noted that the RE-3G reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained, and that recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of the reentry code is feasible. Accordingly, the Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on his circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge. Additionally, despite the fact that the ADSEP records were not in the service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers. In the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presumed he was properly processed for separation and discharged from the Navy. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action to his DD Form 214. That Petitioner’s separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” and the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” That Petitioner be issued a new 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, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 19 November 2018. 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.