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) USD 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 (Kurta Memo) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary (3) Mental Health Condition Advisory Opinion, Docket No: NR20190004576 of 27 Jul 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with a requests to upgrade his discharge, change his narrative reason for separation, and to make other conforming changes to his DD Form 214. Enclosures (1) through (3) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and reviewed Petitioner's petition containing certain allegations of error and injustice on 4 September 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 records and her medical records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and an 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 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 his case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 15 September 2003. On 29 February 2004, the Petitioner commenced a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from . While UA, Petitioner underwent a psychiatric evaluation at home in and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, major depression and somatization. On 29 March 2004, the Petitioner surrendered to military authority to terminate his UA. On 2 April 2004, Petitioner went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for his UA lasting twenty-nine days. As part of his punishment, Petitioner was reduced in rank to the lowest paygrade (E-1) and placed on restriction for sixty days. e. Following his NJP, Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government (personality disorder). Ultimately, on 29 April 2004, Petitioner was separated with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service (GEN) and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. The narrative reason and separation authority for Petitioner’s discharge was “Personality Disorder,” and “MARCORSEPMAN par. 6203.3,” respectively. The MARCORSEPMAN citation specifically references the Personality Disorder provisions. f. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a medical doctor and Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (MD), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 27 July 2020. The MD initially noted that Petitioner’s in-service record provides evidence that he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, major depression, and somatoform disorder (physiological reactions to underlying psychological conditions) in the context of maladjustment to the Marine Corps and external stressors including his parent’s medical conditions. However, the MD noted that there were no available clinical records documenting the diagnosis of a personality disorder. The MD determined that the most appropriate diagnosis for Petitioner should have been an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety as the Petitioner’s mental health condition occurred as a specific reaction to his military and family stressors, and less likely as a separate major psychiatric disorder (such as major depression or somatoform disorders). The MD also observed that there was no evidence in either Petitioner’s military or civilian mental health assessments that he was ever considered not responsible for his actions or should not be held accountable for those same actions. Moreover, the MD stated that an adjustment disorder is a physical condition not considered a disability, with disposition via administrative processing. The MD concluded by opining that there was sufficient evidence that Petitioner suffered an adjustment disorder as a result of his military service and that his mental health condition did not absolve him of responsibility for his misconduct. 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, the Board felt that there is an injustice to label one’s discharge as being for a diagnosed personality, character, and/or behavior disorder. Describing Petitioner’s service in this manner attaches a considerable negative and unnecessary stigma, and fundamental fairness dictates 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 also noted that the Petitioner was discharged using the incorrect basis for separation. Notwithstanding, the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s diagnosed mental health conditions and their adverse impact on his service clearly warranted his expeditious separation under a different MARCORSEPMAN discharge provision, namely MARCORSEPMAN 6203.2 - Convenience of the Government - Condition, Not a Disability, and that processing under such basis would have yielded a similar discharge result and characterization. The Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s GEN discharge characterization. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including Petitioner’s contentions asserting legal errors in the administrative separation process, and that the GEN characterization greatly stigmatizes depression and anxiety as problems that should be punished. However, the Board determined such mitigating factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant additional relief in Petitioner’s case. The Board did not believe that the Petitioner’s record was otherwise so meritorious to deserve an honorable discharge. The Board believed that, even though flawless service is not required for an honorable discharge, in this case a GEN discharge is appropriate. In the end, the Board concluded that the Petitioner received the correct discharge characterization based on his overall circumstances, and that such GEN characterization 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,” 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 received by the Board on 29 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.