Docket No. 5125-20 Ref: Si8gnature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER MBR , USMC Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 23 October 2019 (3) Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 1 November 2019 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 place him on the disability retirement list and/or upgrade his characterization of service to Honorable. Petitioner case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of Ms. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 15 October 2020, 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 the naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 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. Petitioner entered active duty with the Marine Corps in April 2003. After suffering from what was described as a chronic left knee anterior cruciate ligament injury, he was dropped from Amphibious Reconnaissance School on 2 March 2004 and assigned administrative duties. On 11 July 2004, Petitioner admitted himself for suicidal ideations and was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, single episode, moderate and Obsessive Compulsive traits. He was eventually transferred to an outpatient crisis intervention program and released on 23 July 2004 after being determined fit for full duty. In August 2004, Petitioner was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and personality disorder resulting in a recommendation for expeditious administrative separation. He is notified of administrative separation processing for his personality disorder and is recommended for an Honorable characterization of service by his chain of command up to his Commanding Officer. Petitioner was eventually discharged with a General characterization of service on 5 November 2004 due to his personality disorder. Prior to his discharge, Petitioner was medically cleared for separation on 12 August 2004. c. Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated Petitioner for a number of service connected disability conditions including Major Depressive Disorder and bilateral patellofemoral syndrome. d. In correspondence attached at enclosures (2) and (3), the office having cognizance over Petitioner’s request to be placed on the disability retirement list determined that the evidence does not support his request. The Advisory Opinion opined that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was not unfit due to any medical condition eligible for compensation and, had a referral to the Physical Evaluation Board occurred, Petitioner would likely have been found fit for active duty. e. On 12 December 2019, the Board granted partial relief in Petitioner’s initial application to the Board by upgrading his characterization of service to Honorable. However, his case file did not include his rebuttal evidence to the enclosures (2) and (3) since the rebuttal evidence was received after the Board decision in his case. Petitioner submitted a new application to the Board with his rebuttal evidence. In granting partial relief, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for military disability benefits. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board determined that the interests of justice supports changing Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority to eliminate any stigma associated with Personality Disorder being listed on his DD Form 214. Despite the Board’s finding that an injustice exists regarding his narrative reason for separation, the Board again concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was unfit for continued naval service due to a compensable disability condition or that he merited placement on the disability retirement list. In this regard, the Board again concurred with the advisory opinions in the case and adopted the rationale from the Board’s previous decision. The Board was not persuaded by the arguments raised in rebuttal to the opinions. In reviewing the medical evidence, the Board noted that Petitioner was diagnosed with Adjustment disorder and Personality Disorder at the time of his discharge. Neither of the conditions were compensable under the military disability system and would not have resulted in his placement on the disability retirement list even if he had been referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). As previously noted, Petitioner’s medical record also did not record any unfitting residual symptoms to merit a referral to the PEB for his knee. Therefore, the Board concluded Petitioner’s administrative separation for the convenience of the government was appropriate based on his personality disorder diagnosis. A diagnosis that was determined to be more probative than latter diagnoses based on the fact it was issued contemporaneously with his discharge by qualified personnel. The Board determined that any injustice or error associated with lack of counselling in administratively processing Petitioner for separation was addressed by changing his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and his SPD code to “JFF.” Petitioner will be issued a new DD Form 214 consistent with this change. 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.