DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204 2490 Docket No: 6859-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER 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: NR20180006859 of 1 May 2019 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) requesting to set aside a non-judicial punishment (NJP) and restore her rank, upgrade her discharge, and change the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 September 2019, 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 Petitioner’s naval service and medical records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and a 1 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy 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. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 19 May 1992. On 6 March 1997, the Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. d. On 20 March 1997, Petitioner received a “Page 13” written counseling warning for her personality disorder manifested by inconsistent performance, frequent absence from her workplace, argumentative behavior, being distracted and failing to complete assigned work, and making inappropriate demands on medical personnel. On 17 June 1997, Petitioner received a second Page 13 related to her work quality, reliability, and efficiency. The Page 13 specifically documented Petitioner’s: (1) working outside standard laboratory protocol, (2) a failure to repeat or verify a clinically important lab result and failure to notify the responsible health care provider, and (3) four technical errors and one quality control error for month of May. In May of 1998, the Lab Officer documented the Petitioner’s numerous serious performance deficiencies including the discarding of untested specimens. e. On 16 March 1998, Petitioner was notified that she was being considered for administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such a severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. In the interim, on 25 March 1998, Petitioner went to NJP for unauthorized absence, insubordinate conduct towards a non-commissioned officer, and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. As punishment, Petitioner was reduced in rank to E-3. Ultimately, on 8 May 1998, Petitioner was separated with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) discharge characterization, and assigned the narrative reason for separation of “personality disorder.” f. On 20 October 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted Petitioner a 100% disability rating for service-connected paranoid schizophrenia (PS), effective 24 December 2003. g. As part of the review process, a Navy Medical Corps Officer (MCO) who is also a licensed clinical psychologist, reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records, and issued an AO dated 1 May 2019. The MCO noted that some behaviors, such as insubordinate conduct and argumentative behavior could potentially be attributed to emerging symptoms of schizophrenia, but that it is more difficult to determine how UA, poor work quality, and inconsistent performance represent symptoms of schizophrenia. The MCO determined that all of these behaviors could indicate a personality disorder, as was determined in-service. The MCO concluded by opining that there is insufficient evidence to attribute the Petitioner’s behavior that contributed to her discharge to a mental health condition other than a personality disorder. 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 her application under the guidance provided in reference (b). Specifically, the Boardconsidered whether her 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. However, the Board did not grant the specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change her narrative reason for separation from a personality disorder to state her specific mental health diagnosis of PS. Such a change would continue to unnecessarily describe the Petitioner as being diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder. 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 still warranted to the DD Form 214. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board also did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s NJP and GEN discharge characterization. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including Petitioner’s contention that she was experiencing symptoms of PS on active duty. In accordance with the published guidance, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to her record of service, and her contentions about any PS she may have experienced and their possible adverse impact on her service. However, even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that there was no evidence that she suffered from any type of PS on active duty, or that any such mental health condition was related to or mitigated the conduct that formed the basis of her NJP and subsequent discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in her NJP and GEN discharge characterization. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. 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 18 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. 10/10/2019