DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Dear Petitioner: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2021. The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 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 an advisory opinion (AO) furnished by a qualified mental health provider, which was previously provided to you. You were afforded an opportunity to submit an AO rebuttal and you did do so. You enlisted in the Navy on 20 January 2009. Your pre-enlistment physical examination on 17 June 2008 and self-reported medical history both noted no psychiatric or neurologic conditions or symptoms. On 7 January 2010 the Commanding Officer, (CO) recommended your separation based on the fact you had a condition that seriously impaired your military performance. The CO noted that you had been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder of such severity as to interfere with your ability to adequately serve in the United States Navy. The CO noted that the clinical opinion was that the condition was severe and not expected to improve with prolonged psychiatric attention in a military setting. The CO also stated that you would be monitored by the Mental Health Clinic (MHC) and re-evaluated in 30 days. The CO recommended an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 13 January 2010, your command issued you a “Page 13” retention warning (Page 13). The Page 13 noted your adjustment disorder diagnosis, made recommendations for corrective action, provided suggestions for assistance, and expressly warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct could result in disciplinary action and possible processing for administrative discharge. On 8 February 2010 CO, the again recommended your separation from the Navy based on your difficulty adjusting to the demands of military service. The CO noted that you had been seen and evaluated three more times by MHC staff, and the CO determined that your disorder was of such severity as to interfere with your ability to adequately serve in the Navy. The CO again recommended an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 24 February 2010, you were notified of administrative separation proceedings by reason of convenience of the government due to a condition, not a disability. You waived in writing your rights to consult with counsel, submit a statement for consideration, and to request General Court-Martial Convening Authority review of your separation. Ultimately, on 26 March 2010 you were separated from the Navy with an honorable discharge characterization and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. As part of the Board review process, the Board’s Physician Advisor who is a licensed clinical psychologist (Ph.D.), reviewed your contentions and the available records and issued an AO dated 23 June 2021. The Ph.D. initially observed that you were seen for psychiatric evaluation at Naval Hospital six times between November 2009 and February 2010, diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and noted that there was no significant improvement in your symptoms. The Ph.D. noted that stressors in military life are different from those in civilian life and an adjustment disorder by definition is of short duration. The Ph.D. determined that you did not present any clinical evidence suggesting that the command erred either in diagnosing you with an adjustment disorder, or in assigning you an RE-4 reentry code given the Naval Hospital CO’s recommendation. The Ph.D. concluded by opining that there was is sufficient direct evidence you exhibited behaviors associated with a mental health condition on active duty and your command’s decision to discharge you with an RE-4 reenlistment code appears appropriate considering the reason for discharge and the Naval Hospital CO’s recommendation. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos. These included, but were not limited to: (a) per the DSM IV/V, adjustment disorder symptoms do not persist longer than six (6) months after the resolution of the stressor causing the disorder, (b) given the relatively short during of this disorder, a reentry code that permanently bars reenlistment is not merited, and (c) it has been over eleven years since you’re the resolution of your adjustment disorder symptoms and you request an upgrade to a waivable reentry code. However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. In accordance with the Kurta, Hagel, and Wilkie Memos, the Board gave liberal and special consideration to your record of service, and your contentions about any traumatic or stressful events you experienced and their possible adverse impact on your service. However, the Board concluded that your reentry code should not be changed to a waivable code given the severity of your adjustment disorder on active duty. The Board determined that your Navy service records and DD Form 214 maintained by the Department of the Navy (DoN) contained no known errors. Specifically, the Board observed that you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder of such severity as to interfere with your ability to serve on active duty. The Board noted that stressors in military life generally speaking are much different from those in civilian life and that your adjustment disorder was directly related to your inability to adapt and perform in a military environment. The Board also noted that the Naval Hospital CO stated in no uncertain terms that your condition was severe and not expected to improve with psychiatric treatment on active duty and that the CO twice recommended an RE-4 reentry code. Based on your precise factual situation and circumstances at the time of your discharge, the Board determined that your command was justified is assigning you an RE-4 reentry code. Moreover, the Board concluded that notwithstanding the typical duration for adjustment disorders, it would defy logic to grant you a waivable reentry code to potentially allow you to reenlist in an occupation and job setting that caused you to suffer an adjustment disorder in the first place. Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board declined to summarily make changes to your service record solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational, enlistment, or employment opportunities. The Board carefully considered any matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct, your civilian career and accomplishments, however, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your reentry code, and even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board concluded that you received the correct reentry code based on your overall circumstances, and that such reentry code was in accordance with all DoN directives and policy at the time of your discharge. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 9/7/2021 Deputy Director