Docket No: 3038-18

Dear

This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.  

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 April 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, the enclosed previously provided 10 October 2018 advisory opinion (AO), and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

Regarding your 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 your case based on the evidence of record.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 September 2015.  On 21 January 2016, you received a “page 11” written counseling sheet regarding your mental health evaluation and diagnosis for adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety.  On 3 February 2016, you received a second “page 11” written counseling regarding your mental health evaluation and your continued inability to adjust poorly to the demands of military service.  The second counseling sheet specifically noted that you were emotionally unstable to train with your class and posed a safety concern for your classmates and staff.

On 9 February 2016 administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition, not a disability.  The factual basis for the separation was your diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, and that you were re-evaluated again on 3 February 2016 and your original diagnosis did not improve in a military environment.  You were advised of your rights and elected not to consult with counsel, but did elect to submit a written statement.  In that statement, you stated words to the effect that the mental and emotional demands and stressors required to successfully do your job as U.S. Marine were far too much for you to handle as a person, and that you had been struggling with overwhelming anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and sleep issues for quite some time that interfered with your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.  Your commanding officer’s (CO) separation endorsement noted that even after daily interaction and increased supervision by your chain of command and peers, your condition did not improve.  Additionally, your CO concluded that you did not possess the mental discipline and strength to deal with the daily demands and rigorous training that is required of a Marine, and that even with continued psychological evaluation, medication and mentorship, your mental capability did not improve.  On 19 February 2016, you received an uncharacterized discharge, and were assigned a RE-4 reentry code.  In this regard, you were assigned the correct characterization and reentry code based on your factual situation as you were still within your first 180 days of continuous military service.   

A Navy mental health professional reviewed your request and provided the Board with the AO regarding your contention that you suffered from sexual harassment during recruit training, which resulted in your entry level separation.  The AO acknowledged your contention that you were solicited during Engineer School, but noted that you were provided with mental health treatment and the opportunity to report the harassment to either your mental health provider or a sexual assault prevention and response counselor at  .  The AO notes that your records show no indication that you reported the harassment.  The AO states that your in-service mental health treatment records were unavailable for review and opined that, in the absence of any report made by you during your service, it is more reasonable to conclude that the mental health diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety be attributed to difficulties adjusting to the rigors of the Engineer School training, rather than harassment.”  The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support your contention that sexual harassment contributed to your discharge.  The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.  

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contentions that you were not counselled correctly prior to your discharge from the Marine Corps, that you were inappropriately solicited by a superior and made to feel at fault for it, that you had received awards for superior training, and that you now desire to enlist in the Massachusetts National Guard.  However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your reentry code or granting any other relief.  The Board also noted, there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, concerning any harassment you received.  Additionally, the record is clear that you were originally counseled concerning your deficiencies on 21 January 2016 and nearly two weeks later, with additional treatment and mentorship, your condition did not improve.  The Board concurred with the AO that it was more reasonable to conclude that your mental health diagnosis was attributable to difficulties adjusting to the rigors of Engineer School training, rather than harassment.  In the end, the Board concluded that you received the correct discharge type, characterization, and reentry code based on your circumstances, and that such action was in accordance with Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge.  

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.  

Sincerely,
Executive Director