DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7557-18 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 MilitaryDischarge 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) Advisory Opinion (AO) of 3 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his uncharacterized (entry-level separation) be upgrade to honorable. He also impliedly requested that the separation authority “MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6203.3,” separation coder “HFX1,” and reason “PersonalityDisorder” be changed. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 December 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 the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional, which was previously provided to the Petitioner. 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 duty on 15 December 1998. On 8 April 1999, a psychological evaluation stated “He has wanted out since the last two weeks of boot camp. He feels as if he is in a jail. He does not want to be here anymore. A private company may give him a scholarship to law school. He had broken up with his girlfriend and now they have gotten back together.” He was diagnosed with Malingering and a personality disorder with immature features. The evaluation stated that “Patient just does not want to be here. He will undoubtedly increase his threats of suicide if not separated.” He was found not to be mentally ill and is responsible for his behavior. The evaluation concluded that the personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. Although not imminently suicidal or homicidal, due to his maladaptive pattern of behavior, he possessed a continuing risk for harming himself, and for negatively impacting unit morale and effectiveness. The evaluation recommended that Petitioner be “processed expeditiously for an administrative discharge by reason of unsuitability, without recourse to further psychiatric evaluations, hospitalization, or medical board.” c. On 13 April 1999, the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Naval Hospital, forwarded a recommendation to separate Petitioner from the Marine Corps, to his CO due to a personality disorder. It was stated that he was not mentally ill and responsible for his behavior. However, he did manifest a long-standing disorder of character and behavior, which was of such severity as to interfere with his ability to function effectively in a military environment. On 21 April 1999, the Petitioner was counseled concerning is diagnoses of a personality disorder. However, on 6 May 1999, the CO, of the Training Command forward a letter to Petitioner’s CO stating, in part, that due to his observation, Petitioner did “not have a personality disorder, but rather a desire to get out of the Marine Corps in order to suit his ulterior motives.” He claims insomnia and a loss of appetite. Unsurprisingly, he later admitted that he found out that he could receive a scholarship to attend law school, and that he had just gotten back with his girlfriend in .” At that time, he was one semester away from completing his bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice. Petitioner insisted that he just could not adjust to a military environment and that he had a fear of touching any weapons. Ironically, he had a guaranteed contract to be a Military policemen. On 10 May 1999, Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate him from the naval service due to having a personality disorder. His case was forwarded to the separation authority with the recommendation that he be separated by reason of a personality disorder with an uncharacterized characterization of service. On 14 May 1999, Petitioner received an uncharacterized entry-level separation (ELS) by reason of a personality disorder. The Board noted that he was notified of his separation process within 180 days of the beginning of his period of active service. Marine Corps directives authorize an uncharacterized ELS if the processing of a Marine’s separation begins within 180 days of active duty. d. Petitioner, through counsel, contends that he was erroneously diagnosed with a personality disorder, that he was subsequently discharged from the Marine Corps with an uncharacterized (ELS), receiving an RE-3P reentry code, and claiming he had no lost time and no disciplinary actions. e. Enclosure (2), an AO from a Navy mental health professional states that in Petitioner’ discharge paperwork, his CO noted that he did not believe that the Petitioner had a personality disorder, but rather desired to leave the Marine Corps due to other motives, including a scholarship and a rekindling of a previously terminated romantic relationship. In his current request for review, the Petitioner submitted post-Marine service psychological evaluations from civilian and military providers. The AO states that “[i]n 2003, he was evaluated by a civilian psychologist who found that the Petitioner demonstrated no serious emotional disturbances and that he had appropriate adjustment capacity for military service, in spite of earlier behavior. In 2013, Petitioner was evaluated by a civilian psychologist and a psychiatrist from a military treatment facility, both of whom found that he Petitioner was functioning well with realistic goals, objectives, and with no evidence of a mental health condition, or personality disorder. Following separation from the Marine Corps, the Petitioner enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2008, and successfully served two deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, earning several medals and commendations, including a Bronze Star. His Army performance evaluations show that he consistently earned a superior and successful ratings. He was commissioned as a Military Intelligence Officer in the Army Reserve in August 2016. The Petitioner has submitted significant evidence that he does not suffer from a personality disorder. Even at the time of his discharge from the Marine Corps, he was diagnosed with malingering, which does not appear to be in error. Since his discharge from the Marine Corps, he has had an extended period of apparently successful service in the Army Reserve, as well as his civilian and personal life.” The AO concluded that there is evidence that the Petitioner’s diagnosis of personality disorder, at the time of his discharge from the Marine Corps was in error. g. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards 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 Board 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. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action. Although he was diagnosed and discharged from the Marine Corps due to a personality disorder, the Board concludes that, his Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be changed to read that the narrative reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority” to eliminate the possibilities of invasive questions. Further, the Board concurred with the AO’s statements that based on the available evidence, there is evidence that the Petitioner’s diagnosis of personality disorder, at the time of his discharge from the Marine Corps was in error. The Board voted to leave the characterization of service as “Uncharacterized” due to fact that Marine Corps directives authorize the assignment of an uncharacterized ELS, if the processing of a Marine’s separation begins within 180 days of active duty. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: Petitioner’s naval record shall be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Separation authority to read “MARCORSEPMAN par 6214.” Separation Code to read “JFF1.” No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the VA should be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 30 August 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 Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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 theBoard’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.