DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2455-19 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 the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed the enclosure requesting a change to her reentry/reenlistment code, and to make other conforming changes to her DD Form 214 following her 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 her 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 the enclosure was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Regarding 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 her case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 27 October 2014. On 5 August 2015, the Petitioner received two separate “Page 11” counseling warnings (Page 11) documenting dereliction in the performance of physical training and expressing threats, and cheating on a performance exam, respectively. e. Following five separate appointments for psychiatric evaluation at Naval Hospital Pensacola over the course of two months, the Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. On 11 August 2015, the hospital Commanding Officer (CO) noted that Petitioner’s disorder was of such severity as to interfere with her ability to adequately serve in the Marine Corps and recommended her administrative separation. On 17 August 2015, Petitioner received a Page 11 documenting the adjustment disorder. f. Following two additional psychiatric appointments, the Petitioner again was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. On 26 August 2015, the hospital CO again noted that the disorder was of such severity as to interfere with Petitioner’s ability to adequately serve in the Marine Corps and recommended her administrative separation. The CO noted that the Petitioner’s condition was severe and not expected to improve with psychiatric attention in a military setting. g. On 3 September 2015, Petitioner was notified that she was being administratively separated by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition not a disability. Petitioner waived her right to consult with counsel. Ultimately, on 9 October 2015 Petitioner was separated with an honorable characterization of service and assigned a reenlistment code of “RE-04.” The narrative reason for her separation was “Condition Not a Disability” and the separation authority was “MARCORSEPMAN par. 6203.2.” The MARCORSEPMAN citation specifically references the Convenience of the Government due to a Condition not a Disability provisions. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants 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 this policy. In this regard, theBoard felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for a diagnosed adjustment, character, and/or 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. 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. Given the severity of the Petitioner’s adjustment disorder, the Board was not willing to change Petitioner’s existing reentry code from “RE-4” to “RE-1A.” However, theBoard determined a change to Petitioner’s reentry/reenlistment code was instead warranted to “RE-3C.” The Board noted this reentry code corresponds to: “when directed by CMC or when not eligible and disqualifying factor is not covered by any other code,” and is the appropriate designation in cases such as Petitioner’s absent any evidence to the contrary. The Board further noted that the “RE­3C” 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 “RE-3C”reentry code was the correct code based on her overall circumstances, and that such reentry code was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of Petitioner’s discharge. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner’s separation authority be changed to “MARCORSEPMAN par. 6214,” the separation code be changed to “JFF1,” the narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority,”and the reentry code be changed to “RE-3C.” 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 25 February 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.