From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) PDUSD memo, “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI),” of 24 February 2016 (c) USD memo, “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,” of 25 August 2017 (d) SECDEF memo of 25 Jul 2018 “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Advisory opinion of 25 September 2020 (3) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by changing his reentry code from RE-3Q to RE-1, narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” and his separation code to JFF. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 February 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and references (b) through (d), which include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, sexual assault, or sexual harassment (Kurta Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, the Board also considered a 25 September 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider. Enclosure (2). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to the subject former member’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner commenced an enlistment as an officer candidate on 25 February 2010. On 8 February 2011, the Petitioner was seen by a physician at Officer Candidate School (OCS). During this encounter the Petitioner was evaluated and discussed childhood mental health analysis and treatments. Petitioner was subsequently diagnosed with Schizoid Personality Disorder, and it was determined that this diagnosis was disqualifying for continued service. On 14 March 2011, his commanding officer notified the applicable personnel support detachment that the Petitioner was to be disenrolled as an officer candidate due to being not physically qualified. On 22 March 2011, the Petitioner was discharged from the Navy for the narrative reason “failed medical/physical procurement standards (OCS),” assigned a separation code of JFW, and assigned an RE-3Q reentry code. c. In 2015, the Petitioner submitted an application to change his reentry code, separation narrative, and separation code. This Board denied the application on 18 July 2016, reasoning that, in light of his medical diagnosis and reason for separation, there was no error or injustice in the assigned reentry code, separation narrative, and separation code. d. In his current petition, the Petitioner contends that his responses during his psychiatric evaluations and psychological testing were misinterpreted and misapplied, leading to an erroneous diagnosis of personality disorder and discharge from OCS. In support of his petition, the Petitioner provided five separate comprehensive mental health evaluations from 2012 to 2014, which found that he did not have a Schizoid Personality Disorder, or any other diagnosable psychiatric illness. Petitioner also provided evidence he has been highly successful in graduating from a demanding law school and performing well in his early legal positions. The Petitioner provided thirty letters of support rebutting accounts of symptoms of personality disorders or other psychiatric illness, personal statements rebutting the interpretation of his statements by military mental health providers. He also provided numerous photographs, transcripts, correspondence, e-mails, curricula vitae, commendations, and letters of acceptance/graduation from Law School attesting to his accomplishments in various legal positions. e. In light of the mental health issues, the Board sought an AO, which is considered favorable, and was provided to the Petitioner. The AO describes in more detail the history of the diagnosis and findings of various medical professionals. The AO reasoned as follows: Psychiatric evaluations are dependent on the information provided by the patient, review of previous mental health records, and the examiner’s evaluation and clinical impression of the patient’s behavior, thought processes, and personal interactions with the examiner, at the time of the evaluation. Petitioner’s in-service mental health diagnosis was supportable based on the documentation from Dr. psychiatric evaluations, psychological testing results, and review of Petitioner’s past mental health records. However, it must also be noted it occurred in the context of the physical, mental, and psychological stressors of a demanding military accession and training program and may have resulted in an assessment unique only to the time and environment of the evaluation, and less representative of the actual long-term foundational mental health status of an individual. In this context, the cumulative evidence of several comprehensive mental health evaluations over a two-year period most likely provides a more accurate estimation of Petitioner’s actual mental health status when weighed against a single psychiatric evaluation that occurred in a unique and novel environment. The AO concluded that, “there are unique and compelling circumstances in this case, that would grant greater weight to the cumulative assessments that Petitioner does not have a psychiatric diagnosis, than the single psychiatric assessment made in the context of a unique and novel environment.” CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in view of references (b) through (d), and in light of the AO, the Board determined that there exists an error or injustice warranting relief. Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that the greater weight of cumulative assessments demonstrate that the Petitioner does not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Further, the Board found compelling the substantial amount of documentary and other supporting evidence that the Petitioner submitted with his petition. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to grant the Petitioner his requested relief as forth in more detail below. Accordingly, based on a careful review of all of the facts presented, the Board concludes that Petitioner is entitled to relief as follows. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating that the narrative reason for his separation at discharge was “Secretarial Authority,” that his separation code was JFF1, and that his reentry code was RE-1; and That no further changes be made to Petitioner’s record. A copy of this report of proceedings shall be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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.