TL;DR
There is more evidence to support the Henle, but the first and subsequent editions are as shown in the non-Henle version.
Henle publishes their critical commentaries on their website alongside whichever volume they're published in. For example, the commentary for Chopin's Waltz's is published with their Waltz Urtext edition. However, the commentary has nothing to say about mm. 13–14.
Fortunately, for Chopin there is the Chopin Variorum Edition, which includes most, if not all, of the historically significant Chopin holographs and publications. Unfortunately, it has nothing to say about Op. 69/2.
Fortunately again, there is the companion Chopin's First Editions Online, and that archive does include a source. Op. 69/2 was published posthumously as Deux Valses Mélancoliques. The CFEO has three such publications, and all three agree (nearly) with Henle.
All three contain the "extra note" and the C-natural / D-sharp. Where they differ is that there is no grace note at the beginning of m. 13; instead, there's a turn on the final F# in m. 12. The slurring is also different: m. 13 is all two-note slurs, and m. 14 is one long slur. Also, the first beat of m. 14 is a dotted-eighth / sixteenth, rather than two eighths.
However, looking at IMSLP, the Institut Fryderyka Chopina urtext agrees with the second version shown, except that there is one slur over the entire phrase. Unlike the usually complete OCVE, however, IMSLP has a holograph version, which matches the Henle without the differences noted above.
Traveling to the Chopin Institute website, they link to two manuscripts. The one in the French national library agrees with Henle, except, including the grace note, but also, unlike Henle, including the dotted rhythm in m. 13 beat 1. The one from the Jagiellonian Library is the same one as posted on IMSLP.