DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5906-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy 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 with attachments (2) Case summary (3) Mental Health Condition Advisory Opinion, MLCS Docket No: NR20180005906 of 26 Dec 18 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Sailor, filed enclosure (1), requesting his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect an acceptable narrative reason for separation. See enclosures (1) and (2). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 31 January 2019, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider dated 26 December 2018. 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 interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 17 June 2003. Petitioner deployed to from September 2004 to April 2005. On 28 March 2006, during a mental health evaluation, he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression. After spontaneously becoming “markedly agitated” while scheduling his next appointment and threatening to absent himself without leave because he wanted out of the service, on 29 March 2006, Petitioner was diagnosed with a pre-existing Personality Disorder and deemed an imminent risk to himself and others. Subsequently, he was notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder. After he waived his procedural rights, his Commanding Officer recommended an honorable (HON) discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an HON discharge by reason of convenience of the government, with a narrative reason of “convenience of the government.” On 24 April 2006, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason of “personality disorder.” d. On 6 July 2017, Petitioner was diagnosed by a civilian psychologist as suffering from PTSD rather than personality disorder. e. As part of the review process, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and issued a favorable AO dated 26 December 2018. The AO stated that, due to the slight differences in Petitioner’s reports by the military and civilian mental health professionals, there is insufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Petitioner was incorrectly diagnosed with personality disorder during his military service. The AO also noted personality disorder does have a negative connotation and, as such, “removing the personality disorder language from Petitioner’s discharge paperwork would be a benefit to him and the Board may choose to remove the code.” Enclosure (3) applies. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief and additional relief beyond what was requested. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether her application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist the Boards in reaching fair and consistent results in “these difficult cases.” The memorandum describes the difficulty veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized” Mental Health Conditions. The memorandum further explains that since Mental Health Conditions were not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many veterans, and diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, veterans were constrained in their arguments that Mental Health Conditions should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a nexus between Mental Health Condition and the misconduct underlying their discharge. The Board determines that, although it was not error or unjust to discharge Petitioner by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder, in light of the potential for future negative implications, it would be in the interest of justice to change his narrative reason for separation. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the Board concluded Petitioner should receive additional relief in the form of corresponding changes to his separation code and separation authority. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the VA be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 19 June 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. 7/29/2019