Docket No. 1491-20
Ref: Signature Date

 
Dear    ,  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  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, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions contained in Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 22 June 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 26 June 2020 along with your response to the opinions. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in February 2013.  While pending adjudication of misconduct, you were hospitalized for suicidal ideations on 9 September 2014.  During your treatment, you provided a preservice medical history of a prior suicide attempt during which you ingested a bottle of over the counter medication.  You were initially diagnosed with an adjustment disorder but later diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder while undergoing further mental treatment between October 2014 and December 2014.  Upon your transfer to Naval Medical Center  in December 2014, you were again diagnosed with a depressive disorder that preexisted your entry into the Navy and recommended for erroneous enlistment.  During this period, it appears excerpts of medical records from another service member with a similar name were comingled with your medical records.  Based on your medical history, you were recommended for administrative separation due to erroneous enlistment and discharged on 9 February 2015.  You mental health termination report notes your mental health condition had improved with no duty limitations.  Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated you for major depressive disorder at 50% before increasing the rating to 70% effective August 2015.  Currently, you continue to suffer from various mental health conditions. 
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were wrongfully discharged for erroneous enlistment and should be referred to the Disability Evaluation System or placed on the disability retirement list.  You provided evidence that your records were comingled with another service member that suffered from a number of severe mental health conditions and witness statements that attest you did not suffer from preservice mental health conditions.  Additionally, you argued that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your mental health diagnoses while on active duty.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions in your case. 
 
First, the Board did not find your arguments regarding the comingling of medical records persuasive since your hospitalization record from 9 September 2014 clearly documents your preservice medical history and suicide attempt.  In the Board’s opinion, your preservice medical history is consistent with the medical history documented in other parts of your active duty medical record and properly forms the basis for an erroneous enlistment separation based on your preservice suicide attempt and mental health issues.  The Board agreed with the advisory opinion that the comingling of medical records had no effect on your administrative separation due to the existence of the 9 September 2014 medical report. 
 
Second, the Board did not find your witness statements that you did not suffer from preservice mental health issues persuasive when considered in conjunction with your 9 September 2014 medical report.  In the 9 September 2014 medical report, it documents that you did not inform your family of your suicide attempt and did not seek medical treatment.  Therefore, in the Board’s opinion, your reported preservice suicide attempt is not inconsistent with your witness statements that report no mental health issues.  In making their finding, the Board found no basis to question the reliability of the 9 September 2014 report or you as a historian of your medical history. 
 
Third, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of unfitness for continued naval service in your case.  In order to find a service member unfit, the medical evidence must support a finding that the member is unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a qualifying disability condition.  In your case, the Board noted that you were cleared for full duty status at the time of your discharge for erroneous enlistment.  Medical notes documented that you met retention standards and were world-wide assignable with no duty limitations.  Even though your continued to suffer from mental health symptoms, your Global Assessment Functioning was identified as 70; which correlates to mild impairment.  Based on these medical findings at the time of your discharge, the Board concluded the evidence did not support a finding that your mental health condition prevented you from performing the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating.  The Board did not find a contradiction between your fit for active duty medical status and erroneous enlistment determination since qualifications for induction standards are different than retention standards.  
Finally, the Board did not find the VA ratings in your case probative on the issue of unfitness since eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated.  As previously discussed, the Board found direct evidence of your fitness for active duty at the time of your discharge from the Navy.  While the Board empathizes with your current medical condition, they felt compensation and treatment for your disability conditions fall outside the scope of the Department of Defense disability system and under the purview of the VA.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
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 matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 
 
9/1/2020

Deputy Director