The separable case does indeed follow from Krasner's lemma: see here.
I think I have a counterexample to the purely inseparable case. The idea is that we adjoin all possible $p$-th roots of elements in the ground field $K$, where $p$ is the characteristic, resulting in a new field $L$ to which the original valuation extends uniquely (because $L/K$ is algebraic). Then all $p$-th powers of $\ell\in L$ lie in $K$, essentially by the freshman's dream, and in fact the map $L\rightarrow K$ given by $\ell\rightarrow\ell^p$ is a uniformly continuous homeomorphism with uniformly continuous inverse. Therefore, $L$ is complete as long as $K$ is.
We just need to make sure that we can do this with $K$ a complete field and have enough $p$-th roots to make $[L:K]=\infty$. To ensure this, we'll just adjoin a bunch of dummy variables in forming $K$, and the $p$-th roots of these dummy variables will be linearly independent. We begin with the field of rational functions in infinitely many variables over $\mathbb{F}_p, $ namely $\mathbb{F}_p(x_1,x_2,\dots).$ As norm we take the one induced by $|x_1|=\frac{1}{2}$ and $|R(x_2,x_3,\dots)|=1$ for all rational functions $R$, essentially the $x_1$-adic valuation. We still need to complete this, and its easy to see that the completion is the field of infinite Laurent series in $x_1$, expressions of the form $\sum\limits_{k=-n}^{\infty} (x_1^k)R_k(x_2,x_3,\dots)$ where $R_k$ are arbitrary rational functions. This completion is our ground field $K$.
After adjoining all $p$-th roots to form $L$ as described above, we just need to check that $(x_i)^{\frac{1}{p}}$ are linearly independent over $K$; this will show that $[L:K]=\infty$. Well, this is pretty easy: assume not! Then taking $p$-th powers and using the freshman's dream again, we get a non-trivial identity of the form $\sum\limits_{i=1}^m x_i P_i(x_1^p,x_2^p,\dots)=0$ for $P_i \in K$. We can consider the smallest $j$ such that one of the $x_iP_i(x_1^p,x_2^p,\dots)$ series has a non-zero $x_1^j$-term. Taking the $x_1^j$-coefficient of our identity we have $0=\sum\limits_{i=2}^m x_i S_i(x_2^p,x_3^p,\dots)$ where $S_i$ is the $x_1^j$-coefficient of $P_i$ (it's clear that the $x_1P_1(x_1^p,x_2^P,\dots$) doesn't contribute an $x_1^j$ term; if it did, it would be the only one to do so!). The $S_i$ are rational functions, so by clearing denominators they are wlog polynomials, since we have finitely many $S_i$ each using only finitely many variables. But now the monomial terms clearly don't match up at all, so we have a contradiction, and we've established linear independence.