DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3004-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD,” of 3 September 2014 (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) PDUSD memo, “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 Healh Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” of 25 August 2017 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190003004 of 1 May 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect an upgraded characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 4 June 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a Navy mental health provider. 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 interest of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 August 1997. On 22 March 2000, he was referred for a mental health evaluation after self-referring to the emergency room due to high stress caused by pendinginvestigations and “rumors at work related to drug involvement” and a feeling that he would “explode on someone.” On 1 May 2000, he was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder, occupational problems, and alcohol abuse and determined to be “not suitable for active duty due to personality disorder and ongoing danger to self or others.” On 2 May 2000, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for three instances of unauthorized absence (UA), totaling 15 days, and breaking restriction. d. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation by reason of personality disorder. After he waived his procedural rights, Petitioner’s commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of personality disorder with a general, under honorable conditions (GEN), characterization of service. After the staff judge advocate determined the separation was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority directed Petitioner be separated with a GEN characterization of service by reason of personality disorder. He was discharged on 2 June 2000. e. Petitioner contends the behavior his discharge characterization was based upon was the result of “an unknown and untreated mental health condition.” He further contends the in-service diagnosis of personality disorder was later “clarified as bipolar disorder” by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Petitioner contends he began treatment in October 2011, and through treatment, he now manages his mental health condition to the point that he is working on his degree in criminal justice. Petitioner further contends he desires to “get back to some form of service” so he can fulfill what superiors and fellow Marines believed about him. f. As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 1 May 2020. The AO states there is no evidence his bipolar disease arose during military service or has any linkage to his misconduct. Petitioner’s in-service medical records include multiple mental health evaluations which consistently did not demonstrate any evidence of manic symptoms. The AO determined that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to Petitioner’s military service that mayhave mitigated his misconduct. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether the application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. The purpose of the Secretary of Defense memorandum is to ease the process for Veterans seeking redress and assist the Boards in reachingfair and consistent results in “these difficult cases.” The memorandum describes the difficulty Veterans face on “upgrading their discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized” mental health conditions. The memorandum further explains that, since mental health conditions were not previously recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service for many Veterans, and diagnoses were often not made until after service was completed, Veterans were constrained in their arguments that mental health conditions should be considered in mitigation for misconduct committed or were unable to establish a nexus between a mental health condition and the misconduct underlying their discharge. The Board, applying liberal consideration and considering each of Petitioner’s contentions, relied upon the AO and determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. Based on his three periods of UA, the Board concluded his misconduct warranted a GEN characterization of service. However, the Board determined that, although it was not error or unjust to discharge Petitioner by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, it would be in the interest of justice, in light of the potential for future negative implications, to change his narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority to reflect “secretarial authority.” RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating his narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF1,” and separation authority as “MARCORSEPMAN 6421.” 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 12 March 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 Regulation, 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.