DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5492-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) USD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “ClarifyingGuidance 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” (c) USECDEF Memo of 25 Jul 18 “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 w/ attachments 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure requesting a change to his narrative reason for separation and his full legal name on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) following his separation for a personality disorder. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 4 June 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 and medical records, and applicable statutes, regulations, policies. 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 the enclosure was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Regarding the 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 the Petitioner’s case based on the evidence of record. d. The Petitioner originally enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 28 March 1967. Petitioner’s last reenlistment period started 27 June 1977. On 26 April 1979, Petitioner was evaluated for possible psychiatric disorder and considered fit for duty, but required continued psychiatric follow-up. For the reporting periods ending on 3 May and 31 December 1979, Petitioner received adverse performance evaluations documenting performance below what was expected of a second class quartermaster. On 10 January 1980, Petitioner went to non-judicial punishment for three specifications of unauthorized absence. On 24 January 1980, Petitioner was evaluated and diagnosed as ill-suited for military service due to his inability to cope with stressful environments. e. On 5 March 1980, the Petitioner was notified of a proposed administrative separation (Adsep) by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder. Petitioner consulted with counsel and subsequently waived his rights to submit statements on his own behalf and to an Adsep board. The lowest eligible discharge characterization Petitioner could have received was General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN). Ultimately, on 21 March 1980, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy for unsuitability with a GEN discharge and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. The Board specifically noted on his DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Unsuitability -Personality Disorder.” f. At the time of Petitioner’s enlistment into the Navy, Petitioner’s legal name was “.” On 21 April 1980, Petitioner received a GEN discharge from the Navy. In this regard, Petitioner was issued a DD Form 214 based on the name used while serving in the g. After discharge from the Navy, Petitioner had his name legally changed in in March 1981 from “ ” to “ ” . 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, theBoard felt that there is 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 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. Notwithstanding the recommended corrective action below, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s GEN discharge characterization. In light of reference (c), the Board concluded after reviewing the record holistically, and given the totality of the circumstances and purely as a matter of clemency, that the Petitioner’s service during that enlistment merits a GEN characterization of service and no higher, and that the reentry code should remain “RE-4.” The Board concluded that 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. Additionally, the Board did not change the name on Petitioner’s DD Form 214. At the time of Petitioner’s enlistment and discharge for all three of his periods of active duty service, Petitioner’s legal name was “HarryFrank Chipchase.” It was not until after Petitioner left active duty service that he legally changed his name. As Petitioner’s military record now stands, there are no material errors with his legal name as reflected at the time of his enlistment, during his active duty service, or at discharge. Accordingly the Board did not grant Petitioner’s request for his military record to reflect his current post-discharge legal name. 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 “MILPERSMAN 1910-164,” the separation code be changed to “JFF,” 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 6 May 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.