DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 17-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MEMBER Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) USD memo of 25 Aug 17, “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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting a change to his reentry code following his separation for an erroneous enlistment. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 January 2020, 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 the enclosures, relevant portions of his naval service and medical records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies. 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. Although the application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider his application on its merits. b. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 12 January 2010. He completed recruit training and was awaiting to attend “A” School following graduation from Advanced Technical Training. c. Unfortunately, the administrative separation (Adsep) documents are not in the Petitioner’s electronic service record. However, based on the information contained on the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) and the Petitioner’s own statement, the Board was able to determine that his command initiated Adsep proceedings by reason of erroneous enlistment due to a condition, not a disability (enuresis and a diagnosed adjustment disorder) of such a severity as to render the Petitioner incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. Based on Petitioner’s number of years of service, he was not entitled to an Adsep board, and the lowest eligible discharge characterization he could have received was an Honorable. Ultimately, on 20 August 2010, he was discharged from the Navy with an Honorable characterization of service and assigned an “RE-4” reentry/reenlistment code. The Board specifically observed on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Erroneous Enlistment,” and his separation code was “JFC,” which corresponds to and describes an Adsep case involving erroneous entry. d. Petitioner contends that he was erroneously diagnosed with enuresis and desires to have the opportunity to again serve his country in the Reserves or National Guard. e. Despite the fact that the Adsep records were not in the service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers. In the absence of substantial evidence to rebut that presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presumed he was properly processed for separation and discharged from the Navy. CONCLUSION: Upon review and 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 reference (b). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. In this regard, the Board felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as indirectly being for a diagnosed character and behavior disorder, as well as for an embarrassing medical issue. Describing Petitioner’s service in this manner attaches a considerable negative and unnecessary stigma, and fundamental fairness and medical privacy concerns dictate a change. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to label the Petitioner’s discharge as indirectly being for a mental health related and medical condition, and certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. The Board granted the primary specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change and/or upgrade his reentry code. The Board decided to change the Petitioner’s reentry/reenlistment code to “RE-3G.” The Board noted that this reentry code directly corresponds to: “condition (not physical disability) interfering with the performance of duty,” and is the appropriate designation in cases similar to the Petitioner’s, absent any evidence to the contrary. 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, as well as whether or not a request for a waiver of the reentry code is feasible. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the revised reentry code is the correct code based on Petitioner’s circumstances, and is 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 to his DD Form 214. That Petitioner’s separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” and the reentry code be changed to “RE-3G.” That Petitioner 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. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 21 November 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 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. 2/11/2020