From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:      Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO   
  
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 
 
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to change his narrative reason for separation to disability or place him on the disability retirement list.   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 , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 November 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 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 Navy in July 1979 and was assigned to USS  as an administrative specialist.  Within a brief period of reporting to his command, he was punished with non-judicial punishment on 14 February 1980 for assault, disrespect, and an   orders violation.  Subsequently, on 9 June 1980, a special court-martial found him guilty of disrespect.  Finally, Petitioner was found guilty at a summary court-martial for disrespect on 4 September 1980.  As a result of his history of misconduct, Petitioner was evaluated by mental health and diagnosed with an Aggressive Personality Disorder on 1 October 1980.  This led to her administrative separation for unsuitability due to his personality disorder. 
 
     c.  This Board previously denied Petitioner’s request for a disability discharge on 2 April 2003 and 22 June 2015 based on lack of evidence he was unfit for continued naval service due to a qualifying disability condition.  Petitioner submitted evidence that he was rated at 100% by the Department of Veterans Affairs for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) effective 17 March 2020. 
 
 
 
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 determination that an injustice exists in Petitioner’s record due to Personality Disorder being listed on his DD Form 214, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support changing his narrative reason to disability or placing him on the disability retirement list.  The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s mental health condition was incurred or aggravated during his brief period of active duty.  In reviewing Petitioner’s mental health evaluation from 1 October 1980, the Board found preservice medical history of anger and abuse issues that was consistent with his VA mental health evaluation.  As a result, the Board concluded that his condition preexisted his entry into the Navy and was incurred while on active duty.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence to corroborate Petitioner’s allegation that he suffered trauma while on active duty that aggravated his preexisting mental health condition.  As a result, the Board concluded Petitioner’s condition was not aggravated by his brief active duty service since there was no evidence he suffered any additional trauma while on active duty nor did his condition progress beyond its natural progression.  Accordingly, the Board determined that even if Petitioner had PTSD while on active duty and it was unfitting, it was a non-compensable preexisting condition. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner be issued a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicating the narrative reason for separation as “secretarial authority,” separation code as “JFF,” and separation authority as “MILPERSMAN 1910-164.”   
 
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.