DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8299-19 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 “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” Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed the enclosure requesting a change to his reentry code following his separation for a personality disorder. Enclosures (1) and (2) apply. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 March 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interests of justice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner originally enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 26 February 1998. On the Petitioner’s pre-enlistment medical history he denied ever having any psychiatric abnormalities, anxiety, or depression. On Petitioner’s SF-86 Form (Questionnaire For National Security Positions) that he completed pre-service on 7 January 1998, Petitioner checked “No” to the following question: “In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental health professional…or have you consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related condition?” d. On 4 March 1998 Petitioner was evaluated at the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) while still at initial recruit training. Petitioner was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic EPTE (existed prior to entry), and the REU medical officer recommended an entry level separation because of his disqualifying Axis I diagnosis. e. On 5 March 1998, Petitioner was notified that he was being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by his PTSD diagnosis. He elected to waive his rights to consult with counsel, to submit statements, and to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of his discharge. Subsequently, the Petitioner received a “Page 13” counseling warning notifying him that he was ineligible for reenlistment due to his PTSD. Ultimately, on 11 March 1998, the Petitioner was discharged from the Navy with an Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation) (ELS) separation and was assigned an “RE-4” reentry code. The Board observed on Petitioner’s DD Form 214 that the narrative reason for separation was “Personality Disorder,” his separation authority was “MILPERSMAN 3620200,” and his separation code was “JFX,” all of which correspond to and describe an administrative separation case involving a personality disorder. 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, the Board 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 certain remedial administrative changes are warranted to the DD Form 214. However, the Board did not grant the primary specific relief as requested by Petitioner, namely to change his reentry code from RE-4 because the Board did not find a material error or injustice with the Petitioner’s reentry code. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including Petitioner’s contentions that included, but were not limited to: (a) he was diagnosed with PTSD from a childhood trauma, (b) that he joined the Navy at 17 and his pre­service PTSD presented itself during training at , (c) the PTSD became worse which lead to his discharge, (d) that he has received successful treatment for the PTSD, however, the RE-4 code punishes him for having a disorder at that time that he had no control over, (e) that he did not have any issues such as misconduct that should bar him from the chance at seeking future military employment, (f) that the RE-4 code is punitive and severely limits any chance of a military career and many civilian jobs, and (g) that given the type of discharge he received with no issues of misconduct, that the RE-4 code is not warranted. However, the Board found that his contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant changing his reentry code. The Board noted the record reflected that Petitioner admitted to being diagnosed pre-service with PTSD from a childhood trauma, however, he expressly denied experiencing any mental health issues on his official enlistment medical documentation and SF-86 Form. The Board also noted that PTSD would have prevented Petitioner from enlisting had the Navy been aware of his mental health history. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not grant relief solely for the purpose of facilitating Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities. 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 partial 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. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 20 August 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. 4/4/2020