DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370 5 1 00

TRG
Docket No: 9769‑05
8 January 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 on 3 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 to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 28 September 2005 at age 19. Subsequently, you were referred to the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU) because you were complaining that you did not want to be in the Navy. At that time, you admitted to verbal and physical confrontations with the recruit division staff. The recruit division commander reportedly said that you were a poor recruit and repeatedly showed lack of respect for authority. Psychological testing was conducted and was interpreted by the psychologist as showing that you had narcissistic traits, including grandiosity, lack of empathy, and arrogance.. It was opined that you required excessive admiration, and you believed that others were envious of you. The psychologist also noted that prior to enlistment, you had been involved in 15‑20 fights, and had been suspended from high school. Based on your actions while in recruit training, the history you provided, and the psychological testing, you were diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial traits.

Consequently you were processed for an administrative

separation by reason of erroneous enlistment. 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 27 October 2005. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE‑4 reenlistment code.

With your application you have submitted a report from a psychologist who states that he saw you prior to enlistment because of your difficulties in adjusting to adult life. He believes that at the time you reported to the Navy, you were behaving in a mature and compliant manner at home and in the community. The psychologist disagrees with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder because the applicable criteria require a longstanding history of symptoms, and you do not exhibit such symptoms. He believes that your inappropriate behavior while in the Navy was an extension of the adjustment disorder that he had previously diagnosed.

In its consideration of your case, the Board took into account that the REU evaluation included psychiatric testing and the written report included the preservice history you provided and the comments of your superiors. Therefore, the Board believed that this diagnosis was arrived at in a correct manner after careful consideration. However, even if the diagnosis was incorrect, that portion of the psychiatric report that found you unsuitable for service was supported by your admissions. Therefore, the Board concluded that your enlistment may well have been erroneous and, if so, the reason for separation was proper.

Even if your enlistment was not erroneous, you could have been separated due your poor performance in the Navy.

Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE‑4 reenlistment code when an individual is separation by reason of erroneous enlistment or due to recruit failure. Since you have been treated no differently than others separated for that reason and were clearly unsuitable for service, the Board found that there was no 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

2

record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director