From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USMC, XXX-XX- Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF Memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” of 3 September 2014 (Hagel Memo) (c) 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 TBI,” of 24 February 2016 (d) USD Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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 (Kurta Memo) (e) USECDEF Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 (Wilkie Memo) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) 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 to upgrade his characterization of service and make other conforming changes to his DD Form 214 following his discharge for a personality disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 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, to include the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (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 the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to Petitioner. Although Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, Petitioner did not do so. 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 1 June 1999. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychiatric or neurological abnormalities, conditions, or symptoms. d. Between 9 and 21 June 2000, Petitioner was admitted for treatment at the Naval Medical inpatient psychiatric ward following a suicide attempt. Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and an avoidant personality disorder with borderline and dependent traits. The staff determined that Petitioner manifested a longstanding disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Marine Corps and strongly recommended Petitioner’s expeditious administrative discharge. On 5 July 2000 a Medical Officer at Naval Hospital concurred with the diagnoses and also recommended Petitioner’s expeditious administrative separation. e. On 22 July 2000 the Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder. The Petitioner waived his right to consult with counsel, but elected to provide a personal statement. On 22 July 2000 Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service. Ultimately, on 31 August 2000, the Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps with a GEN characterization of service (GEN) with “Personality Disorder” as the listed narrative reason for separation. The Petitioner also received an “RE-4” reentry code. f. In short, Petitioner contended that his discharge characterization should be upgraded because he believed he was being treated differently by his command due to his medical issues and worsening depression. The Petitioner stated that his career in the Marine Corps was going great until his medical issues impacted his service. g. As part of the review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is licensed clinical psychologist (MD), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 12 January 2021. The MD observed that the Petitioner was psychiatrically hospitalized, diagnosed with adjustment and personality disorders, and recommended for administrative separation for unsuitability and risk for self-harm. The MD noted that the remainder of Petitioner’s in-service records failed to reveal any evidence of additional in-service mental health symptoms or conditions. The MD concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence of any additional mental health conditions attributable to Petitioner’s military service that would have influenced the command’s determination of service characterization. CONCLUSION: Upon review and liberal consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the Hagel, Kurta, and Wilkie Memos, the Board believed that there was an injustice in ultimately separating the Petitioner with a GEN characterization for service. The Board observed Petitioner’s overall active duty trait average in conduct (proper military behavior) during his enlistment exceeded the Marine Corps’ required minimum trait average in that category for a fully honorable characterization of service until he received adverse conduct and proficiency marks upon his discharge. The Board also noted that there were no instances of misconduct or adverse counseling entries in Petitioner’s service record. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been under GEN conditions. Especially in light of the Wilkie Memo, the Board concluded after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, that an honorable discharge is appropriate at this time. The Board also determined that it would be 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. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s discharge should not be labeled as being for a mental health-related condition and that certain additional remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s reentry code. The Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on the totality of his circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s character of service be changed to “Honorable,” the separation authority be changed to “MARCORSEPMAN par. 6214,” the separation code be changed to “JFF1,” and the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner shall 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. 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. 2/24/2021 Executive Director