DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6451-19 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, “Supplemental Guidance to MilitaryBoards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD,” 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,” 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,” 25 August 2017 (e) USD Memo, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2018 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) DD Form 8/1, Enlistment Contract (3) Progress Notes, dtd 25 Jan 89 (4) Memo, subj: [Petitioner], Recommendation for Admin Separation by Reason of Convenience of the Government due a Personality Disorder, 23 Feb 89 (5) COMNAVMILPERSCOM Msg dtg 010236Z MAR 89 (6) DD Form 214 (7) Enlisted Performance Record (8) Advisory Opinion (AO), Docket No: 6451-19 of 19 Oct 2020 (9) Petitioner Response to AO, e-mail, dtd 23 November 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval records be corrected to reflect an honorable characterization of service and his last name as 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 December 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. As discussed below, I agree with the Board that some corrective action is appropriate, but do not concur with its recommendation regarding Petitioner’s name change request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include references (b) – (e). 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 waive the statute of limitations and consider Petitioner’s application on its merits. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 18 May 1987. The name reflected on his enlistment contract and his DD Form 214 is the same listed in the subject line of this memorandum. See enclosures (2) and (6). c. On 23 January 1989, Petitioner was admitted to Naval Hospital treatment after making vague suicidal threats. See enclosure (3). d. Upon his discharge from but was diagnosed with narcissistic feature (severe). The mental health provider “strongly [recommended] he be expeditiously administratively separated,” as Petitioner was deemed unsuitable for the requirements of military life due to his severe personality disorder. See enclosure (3). e. On 10 February 1989, Petitioner was notified that he was being considered for administrative separation for the convenience of the government due to his personality disorder as evidenced by his psychiatric evaluation. He waived all rights except his right to obtain copies of the documents that would be forwarded to the separation authority. See enclosure (4). f. By memorandum dated 23 February 1989, Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) recommended that he be discharged for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder and that he receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. In making this recommendation, the CO commented that Petitioner has exhibited “maladaptive behavior and lack of ability to conform to Navy standards, and that his recent behavior (suicidal gestures), couple with his documented alcohol dependence, made it potentially dangerous for Petitioner to remain in the Navy.” See enclosure (4). g. On 1 March 1989, the separation authority directed Petitioner be discharged due to personality disorder with a type-warranted-by-service-record (TWSR) characterization of service. See enclosure (5). h. On 8 March 1989, Petitioner was discharged for his personality disorder with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. See enclosure (6). i. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner’s overall performance average was listed as 3.6, with individual category marks ranging from 3.6 to 4.0. See enclosure (7). According to guidance applicable in 1989, a 2.8 overall trait average was required for an honorable characterization of service. j. Petitioner contends that his personality disorder was misdiagnosed, and that he should have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He explained that his ship had just returned home after escorting another ship back to Norfolk and replaced them in the Persian Gulf, and that this was a very stressful time in his life. He did not, however, provide any evidence of a clinical diagnosis for PTSD, even after being invited to do so. See enclosure (1). k. As part of the Board’s review process, Petitioner’s application and available records were reviewed by a qualified mental health provider, who provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration. Based upon the absence of any evidence of a clinical diagnosis, or even symptoms or conditions suggestive of PTSD in Petitioner’s records, the AO found that the evidence does not support Petitioner’s contention that he suffered from PTSD at the time of his military service, or that Petitioner’s in-service diagnoses or discharge characterization were inaccurate. See enclosure (8). In response, the Petitioner expressed his disagreement with the AO, stating that “nobody was discussing PTSD when [he] was serving.” See enclosure (9). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration of Petitioner’s application and service record, the Majority of the Board found insufficient evidence to establish an error or injustice warranting an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. In light of Petitioner’s claim of PTSD, Petitioner’s application was reviewed in accordance with the guidance of references (b) – (d). Accordingly, the Board applied liberal consideration to Petitioner’s claim of PTSD, and the effect that it may have had upon his conduct. Even applying liberal consideration, and recognizing that the Board may rely only upon Petitioner’s word as evidence, the Majority found insufficient evidence that Petitioner suffered from PTSD. Petitioner exhibited no symptoms or conditions suggestive of PTSD, and he has never been diagnosed with PTSD. The Majority of the Board also considered the totality of the circumstances in accordance with reference (e) to determine whether relief is warranted in the interests of justice. In this regard, the Board considered, among other factors, that Petitioner was diagnosed with a severe personality disorder; Petitioner’s assertion that he was misdiagnosed and that he actually suffered from PTSD; Petitioner’s war time service; Petitioner’s assertion that he has dealt with anxiety since the time of his discharge; and the passage of time. Absent evidence of PTSD, however, the Board determined that these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to justify an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. Accordingly, the Majority determined that the interests of justice do not warrant an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. Although the Majority did not believe an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service was warranted, it did believe that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to avoid the potential for future negative implications. Finally, based upon the order changing Petitioner’s last name, the Majority determined that Petitioner’s DD Form 214 should be changed to match his current legal name. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Majority of the Board recommends the following corrective actions to Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his last name is ” that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority,” that his separation code was “JFF,” and that his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That no further corrective action be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. MINORITY CONCLUSION: Upon careful and conscientious consideration of Petitioner’s application and service record, the Minority of the Board found an injustice warranting an upgrade to Petitioner’s characterization of service. The Minority concurred with the Majority regarding the lack of evidence of Petitioner’s PTSD. Even applying liberal consideration, the Minority found insufficient evidence that Petitioner suffered from PTSD while in the Navy. However, the Minority disagreed with the Majority conclusion that Petitioner’s characterization of service does not represent an injustice. The Minority noted that the separation authority never directed that Petitioner be separated with a general discharge, but rather directed that Petitioner’s service becharacterized as a TWSR. Considering that there is no evidence in Petitioner’s record of military offenses or involvement with civilian authorities, and that Petitioner’s overall performance average was 3.6, well above the 2.8 required for an honorable discharge, the Minority believed that an honorable discharge was, in fact, the TWSR at the time. As such, the Minority believed that Petitioner’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge was an error, most likely caused by the CO’s recommendation, which represents an injustice. Accordingly, the Minority found that an upgrade of Petitioner’s characterization of service was warranted in the interest of justice. The Minority concurred with the Majority determination that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation, separation code, and separation authority should be changed to avoid potential negative future implications. It also concurred with the Majority regarding Petitioner’s name change. MINORITY RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Minority of the Board recommends the following corrective actions to Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his last name is “ ” that his characterization of service was “honorable,” that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority,” that his separation code was “JFF,” and that his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCLUSION: Iconcur with the Minority conclusion that Petitioner’s characterization of service was an error and should be upgraded to honorable. Specifically, the evidence reflects that the separation authority directed that Petitioner’s service be characterized as TWSR. Petitioner’s record reflects that TSWR would have been honorable. Based upon this and the totality of the circumstances, I believe that Petitioner’s characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable. I do not concur with the recommendation of the Board, however, that Petitioner’s name should be changed in the interests of justice. There is noevidence that Petitioner’s name was erroneous at the time his records were created. Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner’s former name in his records causes him any hardship or injustice. The Board’s well-established precedent is to grant name change requests only when the name to be changed presents a hardship under the circumstances. For example, the Board routinely grants requests to change names on official records when a name change subsequent to naval service would require an applicant to reveal potentially embarrassing or discriminatory information in order to associate their current name with their naval record (e.g., transgender name changes), but routinely denies name change requests based upon marriage or court-ordered name changes. The latter simply does not present a hardship or injustice for the applicant to prove that they are the person described in the record. The Board’s recommendation in this regard represents a departure from the Board’s precedent which could call into question all of the Board’s previous name change denials. Seeing no justification for such a departure, I recommend that Petitioner’s name change request be denied. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, I recommend the following corrective actions to Petitioner’s naval record: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting that his characterization of service was “honorable,” that the narrative reason for his separation was “Secretarial Authority,” that his separation code was “JFF,” and that his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.” That Petitioner be issued an honorable discharge certificate. That no further corrective action be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 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 titled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Decision: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Recommendation Approved (Upgrade to honorable; deny name change)