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) 7 January 2021 Advisory Opinion 
 (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 upgrading his discharge characterization from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. 
 
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 an 7 January 2021 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was provided to the Petitioner.  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.  The Petitioner commenced an enlistment in the Navy on 5 October 1988.  On 3 August 1989, he was seen emergently at Naval Hospital  due to suicidal ideation after his return from a period of unauthorized absence (UA) and was facing confinement.  While in the hospital, he was diagnosed with a personality disorder and it was recommended he be discharged expeditiously.  On 22 August 1989, he received nonjudicial punishment for a period of UA as well as for failing to obey an order.  On 19 September 1989, he was informed that he was being processed for administrative discharge using notification procedures and his rights attendant with same.  On 3 October 1989, he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service due to other physical/mental conditions – personality disorder.  His final overall trait average at the time of his discharge was 2.6.   
 
     c.  The Petitioner contends that his discharge was under honorable conditions, so it stands to reason that his discharge should have been honorable because he was discharged for a mental health condition.  In light of Petitioner’s raising an issue of his mental health, the Board requested an AO from a mental health professional, who found as follows: 
 
Petitioner did not submit evidence of a post-discharge diagnosed mental health condition. Petitioner did not report any mental health symptoms or conditions on his discharge from service physical examination. Throughout his counselings, disciplinary actions and administrative processing, there were no concerns cited that warranted referral to mental health resources.  Therefore, based on the available objective evidence, it is my considered medical opinion that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition at the time of Petitioner's enlistment attributable to Petitioner’s military service that may have mitigated Petitioner’s misconduct. 
 
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 partial relief.  Specifically, the Board found, consistent with the AO, that there is no basis for mitigation of Petitioner’s misconduct during his service.  In addition, the Petitioner’s general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service is supported by his overall trait average at the time of his discharge.  Nevertheless, in order to prevent any stigma associated with a mental health condition, the Board voted unanimously to change the narrative reason of the Petitioner’s discharge to “Secretarial Authority,” and his separation code to “JFF1,” as set forth 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 and authority for his separation at discharge was Secretarial Authority, and separation code was JFF1.  His reentry code shall remain as RE-4; 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.