From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USN, XXX-XX Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) 10 U.S.C. §654 (repealed) (c) UNSECDEF memo of 20 Sep 11 (Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654) (d) PDUSD Memo of 25 Aug 17 “Clarifying Guidance to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, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” of 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enls (2) Advisory opinion of 7 Oct 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting a change to his characterization of service to “Honorable.” He also impliedly requested that the separation authority “MILPERSMAN 3630200,” separation code “GFX,” and narrative reason for separation “Other Physical/Mental Condition – Personality Disorder,” be changed on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 October 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 Petitioner’s naval records, applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and enclosure (2), an advisory opinion (AO) provided by a qualified mental health professional, which was previously provided to the Petitioner. 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 15 May 1989. On 28 December 1990, he was referred to medical for suicidal ideation and found not to be suicidal, but referred for a psychiatric evaluation. c. On 31 December 1990, medical personal diagnosed Petitioner with a Personality Disorder and recommended that he be administrative separated from the Navy. d. On 2 January 1991, a squadron medical doctor found him to be a risk for harm to himself and others, and recommended his administrative separation. e. On 7 January 1991, Petitioner was notified of administrative separation. The notification stated “by reason of Convenience of the Government as evidence by your Personality Disorder, severe (harmful to yourself and others),” and also stated that the least favorable characterization of service he would receive is General (under honorable conditions). Petitioner did not initially object to the separation. However, on 9 January 1991, Petitioner submitted a rebuttal, in which he denied making statements that could have been taken as suicidal or homicidal, and asserted that there were subsequent medical evaluations in which he clearly stated he denied suicidal or homicidal intent. f. On 18 January 1991, Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that he be separated from the Navy. g. On 2 February 1991, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with a General (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. h. Petitioner’s characterization of service was based on individual trait averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. His overall conduct average was 3.0. At the time of his service, an average of 3.0 was required to be considered for an honorable characterization of service. i. In his application, Petitioner alleges he was erroneously diagnosed a Personality Disorder and immediately discharged from the service, that his discharge has caused an enormous amount of pain and destruction of his reputation and life, tainting his DD 214 for life on purpose. Additionally, he asserts he is currently enrolled in the Veterans Affairs’ healthcare system being treated for severe a General Anxiety Disorder with Agoraphobia and others. j. Petitioner’s request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance 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. k. The AO provided to the Board states that there is sufficient evidence that Petitioner exhibited psychological symptoms and behaviors consistent with the early phases of an anxiety disorder, and less likely due to a personality disorder, while in military service. The AO further states that the incomplete documentation of diagnostic criteria in the medical record to support a personality disorder diagnosis, coupled with an unwarranted escalation of Petitioner’s assessed risk for harm to self or others, supports the Petitioner’s contention of erroneous diagnosis, discharge and request for consideration for “a better characterization of service.” CONCLUSION The Board reviewed his application under the guidance provided in references (b) through (e) intended to be covered by this policy. Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board concluded that the Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in the form of relief. The Board noted that a characterization of service is based in part, on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. A review of Petitioner’s official records do not show any conduct or proficiency trait averages to justify him receiving a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. At the time of his service, a conduct average of 3.0, was required to be considered for an honorable characterization of service. In this regard, based upon Petitioner’s overall record, lack of justification for his characterization of service, and given our current understanding of mental health conditions, relief in the form of his characterization of service should be changed to “Honorable.” In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, showing that on 2 February 1991, he received an “Honorable” characterization of service. Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation was “Secretarial Authority.” Petitioner’s separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” Petitioner’s separation code be changed to read “JFF.” That 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 be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 12 June 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 Regulation, 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. 12/19/2020 Executive Director