DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1053-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Director CORB ltr 5220 CORB: 002 of 18 Apr 17 (3) Senior Medical Officer CORB ltr 1001 CORB: 002 of 5 Jul 17 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to change his narrative reason for separation to disability and remove derogatory information from his naval record. Petitioner was previously denied relief by the Board on 10 August 2017 and his case was reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 July 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered advisory opinions contained in Director CORB letter 5220 CORB: 002 of 18 April 2017 and Senior Medical Officer CORB letter 1001 CORB: 002 of 5 July 2017 along with Petitioner’s responses to these opinions. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. A review of Petitioner’s record shows he entered active duty with the Navy on 7 February 2002. During basic training, Petitioner was diagnosed with Occupational Problems on 2 April 2002. After reporting to , Petitioner was again diagnosed with occupational problems, with a provisional diagnosis of adjustment disorder, on 13 September 2002 after he expressed vague suicidal ideations and other physical symptoms that only occured onboard non-judicial punishment was imposed on Petitioner for insubordination, orders violation, and provoking speech and gestures. Another non-judicial punishment was imposed on 20 November 2002 for a number of unauthorized absences from restricted musters and orders violations. These two recorded incidents of misconduct formed the basis for Petitioner’s processing for administrative separation due to misconduct. Petitioner was notified of the Navy’s intent to process him for separation and he acknowledged his rights. On 5 December 2002, Petitioner was discharged with an Other than Honorable characterization of service for misconduct. c. In 2013, Petitioner was diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder by a civilian medical provider. Based in part on this evidence, Petitioner requested a change to his characterization of service to the Naval Discharge Review Board and was denied on 27 January 2014. On 5 June 2015, this Board also denied Petitioner request for an upgrade to his characterization of service and removal of the non-judicial punishments from his military record. He argued that his 2013 diagnosed bipolar condition existed in 2002, contributed to his misconduct, and was unfitting for continued naval service. d. In correspondence attached at enclosures (2) and (3), the office having cognizance over Petitioner’s request to have his narrative reason for separation changed to disability determined that insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that he was suffering from a compensable disability condition or that he had been mistreated while on active duty. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. The Board concluded that liberal consideration of Petitioner’s case mandates that his narrative reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority and his characterization of service be upgraded to General under Honorable conditions. The Board felt Petitioner should have been administratively separated during basic training after being diagnosed with occupational problems on 2 April 2002 and, by placing him in an operational environment, the Navy likely exacerbated his adjustment disorder contributing to his misconduct. Additionally, the Board determined Petitioner’s misconduct was not too serious to merit an Other than Honorable characterization of service when liberally considered in light of his diagnosed adjustment disorder. Despite this finding, the Board ultimately concluded Petitioner was mentally responsible for his misconduct and, therefore, legally discharged with an Other than Honorable characterization upon waiving his administrative separation board. Therefore, they determined all derogatory material, with the exception to the relief granted below, should remain in his record to accurately document his brief career. They concluded that the Board’s recommendation to change his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority and upgrade his characterization of service was sufficient relief to address the injustice identified by the Board. Regarding Petitioner’s request to change his narrative reason for separation to disability, the Board substantially concurred with enclosures (2) and (3) and concluded the evidence does not support relief. Specifically, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner was suffering from a compensable disability condition at the time of his discharge. While the Board considered his 2013 bipolar diagnosis, they felt this diagnosis was too distant in time from his discharge date to be probative. The Board felt too many potential intervening factors exist to be able to rely on the 2013 diagnosis as a basis to overturn the 2002 adjustment disorder diagnosis. Therefore, despite applying liberal consideration to the circumstances of the case, the Board determined it lacked sufficient evidence to support the narrative change requested by the Petitioner. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, his characterization of service to General under Honorable Conditions, and his SPD code to JFF. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter. 5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.