Docket No: 4403-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF      
 
Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552  
       (b) SECDEF memo, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards 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 Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” of 25 August 2017 
        
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 
       (2) Case summary 
       (3) Advisory Opinion, Docket No:  NR20190004403 of 4 Jul 2020 
   
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting the Board correct his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect a change to his characterization of service.   
 
2.  The Board, consisting of     ,   ,    and     reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 August 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 naval service records, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified 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 Navy on 25 November 1996.  On 28 October 1997, he received nonjudicial punishment for a three-day unauthorized absence.  On 11 June 1998, Petitioner was referred for a psychiatric evaluation on an urgent basis for suicidal ideation.  While admitted to the psychiatric ward for five days, Petitioner reported that he had a depressed mood with frequent thoughts of suicide for the year prior to admission.  He further stated that he attempted to hang himself in November of 1997 but did not seek medical attention after the attempt.  Expeditious administrative separation processing was recommended by the psychiatric provider.  Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation proceedings with a general, under honorable conditions (GEN), characterization of service by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder.  After Petitioner waived his procedural rights, the discharge authority directed Petitioner’s discharge by reason of convenience of the government with a GEN characterization of service. On 2 July 1988, Petitioner was discharged by reason of personality disorder.   
 
 d.  Petitioner contends he suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) which contributed to his personality disorder and inability to adapt.   
 
 e.  As part of the Board’s review, a qualified mental health provider reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and available records and provided an AO dated 4 July 2020.  The AO stated there are no clinical records or other evidence in Petitioner’s record, or submitted by him, which indicate he suffered from a TBI.  Further, the AO noted personality disorders are “chronic and life-long in nature” and a TBI would not result in a personality disorder but could “exacerbate the behavioral manifestations of an existing personality disorder.”  However, the AO stated there was no available evidence that indicated Petitioner’s personality disorder was exacerbated by a TBI. The AO concluded there is insufficient evidence Petitioner incurred a TBI during military service or that his in-service misconduct is attributable to TBI or other mental health condition.  The AO was provided to Petitioner on 7 July 2020, and he was given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When he did not respond within 30 days, the case was submitted to the Board for review.   
 
CONCLUSION: 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board reviewed the 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 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, 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 carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered Petitioner’s contention that he incurred a TBI in-service which contributed to his personality disorder and inability to adapt.  The Board concurred with the AO and concluded there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s contention that he suffered an in-service TBI which resulted in or exacerbated his diagnosed personality disorder.  Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to establish an error or injustice in the GEN characterization of service Petitioner received.   
 
In light of the potential for future negative implications, the Board determined Petitioner’s narrative reason, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to “secretarial authority.”  
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 
 
Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 indicating the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.”       
 
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 22 April 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.