CRS
		                                                        Docket No: 1897-06
	11 October 2006

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 13 September 2006. 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.

The Board found that on 17 February 1998 you reenlisted in the Navy after nearly ten years of prior active service. On 17 October 2001, after an inappropriate outburst of emotional behavior, you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. Your medical record reveals that you had similar outbursts in 1990, 1992, and 1993. In each case, you were found responsible for your behavior.

On 23 October 2001 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disorderly conduct. The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction in rate from petty officer first class (ET1; E-6) to petty officer second class (ET2; E-5). You appealed the NJP but your appeal was denied.

On 29 November 2005 you were found not physically qualified for submarines by reason of cyclothymic disorder requiring medications. In a statement dated 6 February 2006 an Air Force physician opines that you had symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of cyclothymic disorder, and that most of your inappropriate outbursts could have been prevented if you had been given intensive treatment
.
The Board considered your contention that if you had been properly diagnosed in 1990 and thereafter, you would have never received NJP. However, the Board found your contention insufficient to warrant removal of the NJP. As noted above you were examined and found responsible for your actions. The Board presumed that your commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding, based on the evidence before him, that you committed the aforementioned offense, and that a reduction in rate was an appropriate punishment. In this regard, the Board concurred with the comments in the commanding officer’s endorsement of 29 October to your NJP appeal. Furthermore, you were evaluated by several psychiatrists during a lengthy period of time, none of whom diagnosed a cyclothymic disorder. In addition, the Board noted that one of the main criteria for the diagnosis of cyclothymic disorder is that an individual have symptoms of the disorder over a two year period, with no symptom-free intervals longer than two months during that period. That requirement certainly was not established in your case.

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,

							W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                Executive Director