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) 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 (Wilkie Memo) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to change to his reentry code following his separation for a personality disorder with an honorable characterization of service. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 8 January 2021, 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 Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of his naval record, an advisory opinion (AO) from a qualified mental health provider, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 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. The Petitioner originally enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 23 July 2014. Petitioner’s pre-enlistment physical and medical history noted no psychological or neurological abnormalities, conditions, or symptoms. c. On 16 July 2017, the Petitioner underwent a mental health evaluation on board the USS by the Command Psychologist (CP). The Petitioner was diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder. The CP concluded that Petitioner manifested a long-standing disorder of character and behavior which was of such severity as to render him unsuitable for continued military service. The CP determined that his disorder was not amenable to conventional psychological care, his prognosis for continued military service was undeniably poor, and that his condition was highly likely to consistently interfere with assignment to, or performance of, duty in the United States Navy in any capacity. The CP strongly recommended Petitioner’s administrative separation. d. On 25 July 2017 the Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder. Petitioner elected to waive in writing his rights to consult with counsel, to submit statements, and to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of his discharge. Ultimately, on 6 October 2017 the Petitioner was discharged from the Navy for a personality disorder with an Honorable characterization of service and assigned an “RE-3G” reentry code. The Board observed on Petitioner’s DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Personality Disorder,” the separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 1910-122,” and the separation code was “JFX,” all of which correspond to and describe an administrative separation case involving a personality disorder. e. In short, Petitioner contended that his discharge for a personality disorder was unjust and based on a misunderstanding, and that he was never properly counseled that he could not reenlist after separation. He also contended that he was “cleared of all allegations of any mental health disorder.” f. As part of the review process, the BCNR Physician Advisor, who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 23 November 2020. The Ph.D. noted that Petitioner’s post-service medical records indicated that he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, cannabis use disorder, tobacco use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that Petitioner’s in-service personality disorder diagnosis was erroneous. 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 the Wilkie Memo. In this regard, the Board determined that it would be 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. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s discharge should not be labeled as being for a mental health-related condition and that certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. Notwithstanding, the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the original reentry/reenlistment code, and the Board did not grant the primary specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change his reentry code from RE-3G to RE-1. The Board noted that the RE-3G reentry code directly corresponds to: “condition (not physical disability) interfering with the performance of duty,” and is the appropriate designation in personality disorder cases absent any evidence to the contrary. The Board further noted that the RE-3G reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained, and that recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of the reentry code is feasible. Accordingly, the Board concluded the Petitioner was assigned the correct reentry code based on his circumstances, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of his discharge. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action to his DD Form 214. 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. 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. 1/23/2021 Executive Director