DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2100-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) USD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “ClarifyingGuidance 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 requesting a discharge upgrade and other conforming changes to his DD Form 214 following his separation for an adjustment disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 April 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 and 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. 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. Regarding the Petitioner’s request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 3 November 2010. On 26 August 2011, the Petitioner was notified of an administrative action to separate him from the naval service for convenience of the government on the basis of physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability that impaired his performance of duty. The Petitioner waived his right to consult with counsel, submit statements on his own behalf, and general court-martial convening authority review of his case. Based on Petitioner’s number of years of service, he was not entitled to an administrative discharge board (ADB), and the lowest eligible discharge characterization he could have received was General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN). Ultimately, on 21 September 2011, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a GEN discharge and assigned an RE-3G reentry code. The Board specifically noted on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Condition, Not a Disability,” and his separation code was “JFV,” which corresponds to and describes an administrative separation case involving a condition not a disability interfering with the performance of duty with an ADB board waiver. e. On 7 March 2013, the VA granted Petitioner a service-connection for an anxiety disorder to include adjustment disorder. However, the VA rated this disorder at 0% and did not grant disability compensation. f. On 26 August 2014, the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that Petitioner’s discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. 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 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, theBoard felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for an adjustment 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. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to label the Petitioner’s discharge as being for a mental health-related condition, and that certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. The Board did not grant part of the relief requested by Petitioner, namely, to change or remove the existing reentry code. The Petitioner’s current reentry code is “RE-3G.” TheBoard 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 such as 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 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 his circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge. The Board also observed that the governing MILPERSMAN provision for Petitioner’s administrative separation, Paragraph 1910-120, provides that the characterization of service under this provision shall be honorable unless a GEN characterization is warranted. The Board determined that the Petitioner’s record did not contain adverse information to warrant a GEN discharge, and concluded that a discharge upgrade is appropriate. Finally, the Board did not grant Petitioner’s request to remove certain remarks from Block 18 of the DD Form 214. The Board noted that such remarks are neither adverse nor erroneous and only indicate an administrative reference to a document control number and must remain. 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 “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” and the narrative reason for separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” 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 originally received by the Board on 8 January 2019. 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.