DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 7911-05
2 February 2007

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application 0111 30 January 2007. 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 24 July 1997 at age 22. On 17 September 199~t you were referred to the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) after you told a chaplain that you could not handle the Navy. During the evaluation, you reported an employment history consisting of 20 jobs since the age of 16. You stated that you had been fired three times and had quit eight times on impulse. You also admitted to using illicit drugs. After a review of all the factors, you were diagnosed with a personality disorder with schizoid, borderline and antisocial features. The disorder was disqualifying for service.

Based on the REU evaluation, you were processed for an administrative separation. In connection with this processing, you elected to waive your procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an entry level separation and you were so separated on 1 October 1997. At that time you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4. reenlistment code.

You contend ir~ your application that your problems began when you were erroneously accused of being a sleepwalker and that your subsequent statements during the evaluation were either misstated, exaggerated, or taken out of context. You have submitted character references showing that you have completed college courses and performed in a satisfactory manner during a one-year period of employment.. Your wife has submitted a statement to the effect that you have never been a sleep walker. You contend that you have never been in any trouble and are employed as a robotics technician.

The Board concluded that your unsupported contentions to the effect that your preservice history set forth in the psychiatric evaluation was inaccurate are not supported by any evidence. Further, it appears that the only way the interviewer could only have known the details set forth in the evaluation is if they were provided by you. The Board believed that the history as set forth in the psychiatric evaluation was sufficient to support the diagnosis of a personality disorder, and you were properly separated from the Navy.

Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated by reason of a diagnosed personality disorder, and such a code is normally assigned when an individual is unable to complete recruit training. . Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

2