DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3657-19 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 of 3 Sep 14 “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (c) PDUSD Memo of 24 Feb 16 “Consideration of Discharge Upgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI” (d) 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” (e) USECDEF Memo of 25 Jul 2018 “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Mental Health Condition Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190003657 of 22 February 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with a request to upgrade his characterization of service and to change his narrative reason for discharge. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's petition containing certain allegations of error and injustice on 30 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 records and his medical records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an 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 interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. After being discharged from the Marine Corps in September 2001 for enuresis, the Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 5 May 2003. On his Navy pre-enlistment physical, the Petitioner denied all psychological and neurological issues. On 27 October 2003, the Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and borderline personality traits R/O disorder. The Navy Medical Officer determined that Petitioner had questionable suitability for military service. Between 8 November 2008 and 8 December 2008, the Petitioner left his command without legal authority or justification and was in an unauthorized absence status. d. On 11 December 2003, the Petitioner was diagnosed with alcohol dependence with physiologic dependence in early partial remission and with bipolar II disorder. On 29 December 2003, the Petitioner was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder and borderline personality disorder. The Navy Medical Officer recommended Petitioner’s expeditious administrative separation for unsuitability based on the personality disorder diagnosis that was of such severity as to interfere with adequately serving in the Navy. e. On 31 December 2003, the Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder. The Petitioner waived his rights to consult with counsel and submit a written statement to the separation authority for consideration. Ultimately, on 9 January 2004, the Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service and “Personality Disorder” as the listed narrative reason for separation. The Petitioner also received an “RE-4” reentry code. f. In short, Petitioner contends that his discharge was directly related to behavior associated with his mental health condition. As a result, the Petitioner effectively argued that the Board must view his mental health condition as a mitigating factor to the misconduct underlying his discharge and upgrade his characterization of service and change his narrative reason for separation. g. As part of the review process, the BCNR Mental Health Professional (MHP), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued a favorable AO dated 22 February 2020. The MHP observed that the Petitioner was diagnosed with several mental health conditions during his military service, including bipolar personality disorder, bipolar II disorder, and alcohol dependence in early partial remission. The MHP concluded by opining that there is evidence to attribute his behavior to his service-connected mental health conditions. CONCLUSION: Upon review and liberal 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 references (b) through (e). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by these policies. The purpose of the Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (b)), is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in reaching fair 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 because 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. Reference (d) was promulgated in 2017 to resolve ambiguities in light of reference (b), provide clarifying guidance to review boards with the goal to achieve greater uniformity between the services, and also to better inform veterans about how to achieve relief with these types of cases. Similarly, the intent of the Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (e)), 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 memorandum sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief, including arrests, criminal charges, or any convictions. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the recent policy guidance, the Board felt that Petitioner’s diagnosed mental health conditions mitigate any misconduct factoring into his discharge characterization. The Board also concluded that Petitioner’s mental health-related symptoms and conditions as possible causative factors in the misconduct contributing to his discharge and characterization were not outweighed by the severity of Petitioner’s misconduct. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to characterize the Petitioner’s service as having been under GEN conditions, and that an honorable discharge under these circumstances is appropriate at this time. The Board also determined that there was 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. With that being determined, the Board concluded that no useful purpose is served by continuing to label Petitioner’s discharge as being for a mental health-related condition, and certain additional remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s reentry code. The Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on the totality of his circumstances, and that such reentry code was 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. 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.” Petitioner shall be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Petitioner shall be issued a new Honorable Discharge Certificate. 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 or about 27 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 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. 5/16/2020