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)  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), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (Board), requesting that her naval record be corrected to change both her narrative reason for separation and her reentry code following her separation for a personality disorder with an honorable characterization of service.     
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 February 2021, 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 Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of her naval record, an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the guidance from the Wilkie Memo.  
 
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 originally enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 5 January 2004.  Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychological or neurological conditions, or symptoms.   
 
d. On 26 May 2004, the Petitioner underwent a mental health evaluation at Naval Medical Center .  During the examination she disclosed that she had a pre-service diagnosis of bipolar disorder that she intentionally did not disclose on her enlistment documentation.  She further revealed that she was initially diagnosed with depression before her diagnosis was changed to bipolar disorder.  She also indicated that she was prescribed medication to treat her mental health conditions. 
 
e. On 25 June 2004 the Petitioner was notified that she was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of:  (1) fraudulent enlistment; and (2) convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder.  Petitioner elected to waive in writing her rights to consult with counsel, to submit statements, and to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of her discharge.  Ultimately, on 30 July 2004 the Petitioner was discharged from the Navy for a personality disorder with an Honorable Discharge and assigned an “RE-3G” reentry code.  The Board observed on Petitioner’s DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Personality Disorder,” and the separation code was “JFX,” which correspond to and describe an administrative separation case involving a personality disorder.    
 
f. In short, Petitioner contended that her discharge for a personality disorder was unjust because she did not have personality disorder and instead was diagnosed with PTSD.  She also contended that her narrative reason for separation adversely affects her employability.  
 
g. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records.  The Ph.D. noted that there was no indication in Petitioner’s service records she was ever diagnosed with a personality disorder in-service or post-service.  The Ph.D. concluded by opining that Petitioner’s separation from the Navy was the result of an undisclosed mental health condition diagnosed prior to service and not the result of 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 Board considered whether her application was the type that was intended to be covered by the Wilkie Memo.  
 
The intent of the Wilkie Memo is to simplify the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The memorandum noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances 
and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The Wilkie Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in the application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief. 
 
In this regard, the Board 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 remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214.   
   
Notwithstanding, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the original reentry/reenlistment code, and the Board did not grant the other specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change her reentry code from RE-3G to RE-1.  The Board noted that the RE-3G reentry code directly corresponds to:  “condition (not physical disability) interfering with the performance of duty,” and is the appropriate designation given the totality of the circumstances in her case.  The Board further noted that the RE-3G reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained, and that recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of the reentry code is feasible.  Accordingly, the Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on her circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of her discharge. 
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action: 
 
That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 that indicates the separation authority is “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code is “JFF,” and the narrative reason for separation is “Secretarial Authority.”        
 
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.