Docket No: 8100-19 Ref: Signature Line From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USMC, XXX-XX 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 PTS (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 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) USD memo of 25 Jul 18, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency nations” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (NR20190008100) (2) Case summary (3) Advisory Opinion dtd 23 Nov 20 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 an upgrade to his discharge to reflect an honorable characterization of service. Enclosures (2)-(3) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 January 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner’s application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo), the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). Additionally, the Board also considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to Petitioner. Although Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, Petitioner did not do so. 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 interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 20 September 1988. On 10 April 1991, Petitioner was counseled for failure to conform to regulations concerning long distance phone calls. d. On 25 July 1991, Petitioner received a psychiatric evaluation; the evaluation resulted in the recommendation that Petitioner be separated from the military. On 26 July 1991, Petitioner was counseled concerning his diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. e. On 22 August 1991, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence (UA) from 30 July 1991 to 16 August 1991. f. On 18 September 1991, Commanding Officer, Security Battalion recommended that Petitioner be separated by reason of convenience of the government due to a diagnosis of personality disorder. The Commanding Officer stated that he had been offered every resource available to overcome his deficiencies but Petitioner was unwilling to cooperate and had no potential for further useful service. g. On 1 October 1991, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the recommendation for Petitioner’s discharge and found it sufficient in law and fact. The Staff Judge Advocate’s review noted that Petitioner’s proficiency and conduct marks were 4.5/4.5. h. On 4 October 1991, Commander, Marine Corps Combat Development Command directed that Petitioner be separated with a general discharge on the basis of personality disorder. i. Petitioner was discharged from the Marine Corps on 10 October 1991, on the basis of Convenience of the Government, Personality Disorder (without administrative discharge board), and received a general discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. j. In his application to the Board, Petitioner asks for an upgrade to his discharge characterization from general to honorable. He states that during his last year of service, his brother was fatally wounded. Five days later, Petitioner’s uncle was killed at his place of work. Petitioner also states that within his first year of marriage, his wife was caught by Military Police with another Marine in their home on base. Despite the incident, Petitioner tried to make the best of things but states that there was no real family counseling to speak of at the time. He contends that he sought help from the base chaplain and a civilian psychologist. Petitioner states that he was discharged shortly after his evaluation, and no follow up care was provided or suggested. Petitioner notes that he tried to rejoin the Marine Corps six months after his discharge but his RE-4 code did not allow him to join any branch of the service. He states that he has been married for 25 years, he has two sons in the Armed Forces, and he harbors no ill will or feelings toward the Marine Corps. k. As part of the review process, a licensed clinical psychologist reviewed Petitioner’s available records and issued an AO that noted that Petitioner’s in-service records support a diagnosis of a personality disorder but considered that Petitioner did not provide any documentation to support an alternate mental health diagnosis or to refute the personality disorder diagnosis. The AO concluded that based on the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence that Petitioner exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition during his military service which would mitigate his personality disorder diagnosis or his discharge characterization of service. The AO was provided to Petitioner, and he was given 30 days in which to submit a response. When he did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, his case was submitted to the Board for consideration. CONCLUSION The Board reviewed Petitioner’s application, the available service record, and the AO. The Board concurred substantially with the findings of the AO and determined that although Petitioner’s record does reflect a diagnosis of personality disorder, the available evidence does not establish that he was suffering from a mental health condition at the time of his military service which would mitigate or change the personality disorder diagnosis or which would support an upgrade to his characterization of service. The Board noted that Petitioner’s record reflects proficiency and conduct marks of 4.5/4.5, but considered his 10 April 1991 counseling and his 22 August 1991 NJP, and determined that Petitioner’s general discharge was appropriate as issued. The Board, however, determined that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation of Convenience of the Government, Personality Disorder (without administrative discharge board), should be changed as a matter of justice because it potentially reveals personal medical and/or diagnostic information. The Board concluded that Petitioner is entitled to a change to his narrative reason for separation to reflect “Secretarial Authority” and to remove the reference to his diagnosis of personality disorder. In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 10 October 1991, he was issued a general discharge by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” that his SPD code is “JFF1,” and his separation authority is “MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6421.” That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. 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 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.