Docket No: 527-19 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 PTSD” (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) PDUSD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “Clarifying Guidance to MilitaryDischarge 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 (2) Advisory Opinion of 13 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting an upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's that the partial 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 the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, post-service diagnosis, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a Navy mental health professional. 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. On 17 June 1988, Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy after serving over four years of honorable service. On 21 April 1992, he was counseled concerning his fiscal irresponsibility and failing to pay just debts. On 6 March 1992, a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed Petitioner with a paranoid personality disorder. On 6 July 1992, Petitioner was notified of administrative discharge action due to a personality disorder manifested by inconsistent performance, aberrant behavior, and an established pattern of failure to pay just debts. He waived his right to request that his case be heard by an administrative discharge board. On 22 July 1992, Petitioner’s commanding officer forwarded the case to the separation authority recommending that Petitioner be separated from the Navy with a general discharge stating, in part, that Petitioner’s behavior had greatly affected his performance on the job and with members of the staff despite repeated counseling. On 24 July 1992, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. c. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis, based on a member’s reason for discharge. Petitioner’s conduct average was 2.0. At the time of his service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required to be considered for a fully honorable characterization of service. d. Petitioner contends that while on shore duty at , he and his staff non­commissioned officer did not get along. Within two weeks of arriving from the fleet with a 4.0 evaluation, he was given 1.6 and 2.4 evaluations with no supporting data. He added that there is evidence that he suffered from the effects of being in the during , and that this could have affected his performance. e. As part of the review process, a BCNR Mental Health Professional (MHP), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued the AO. The AO noted that Petitioner was diagnosed in service with a paranoid personality disorder. He denied any mental health symptoms on his discharge physical. Petitioner asserts that he was suffering from a mental health condition he incurred following his deployment during Operation He submitted a letter of support from a veterans’ services center that he suffers from early onset of dementia and requires assistance in his claim. No other records were available for review. The AO concluded that, based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to attribute the Petitioner’s behavior to a mental health condition other than his in-service diagnosed personality disorder. f. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the “ClarifyingGuidance to Military Discharge Review Board 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” memorandum of 25 August 2017. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), theBoard concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. Additionally, the Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (d). Specifically, the Board considered whether his application was the type that was intended to be covered by this policy. Although Petitioner was diagnosed with a personality disorder, the Board concludes that, in order to eliminate the possibilities of invasive questions, his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be changed to read that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority.” The Board voted not to change his general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, given his failure to attain the required average in conduct. RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following partial corrective action. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” That the separation authority be changed to “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That the separation code be changed to “JFF.” That Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). No further action be granted. A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 13 December 2018. 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.