Docket No. 5279-20
Ref: Signature Date

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO FORMER MBR   USN 
 
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 from misconduct due to a disability.  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 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 Navy in September 2004.  Non-judicial punishment was imposed on him for unauthorized absence and disrespect on 14 January 2005 but Petitioner later performed well after his assignment to USS .  However, Petitioner was diagnosed with a personality disorder on 25 January 2006 and recommended for administrative separation.  As a result, he was processed for all known reasons and notified of administrative separation for commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.  After acknowledging his rights, Petitioner was discharged on 10 March 2006 for misconduct with a General characterization of service.   
 
     c.  Petitioner previously petitioned this Board on several occasions requesting different types of relief.  He was denied on 17 May 2006 when he requested to set aside his non-judicial punishment.  He was again denied on 2 April 2009 after requesting a disability discharge.  On 16 October 2018, his request for reconsideration was denied without a hearing based on lack of new evidence.                                     
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence supports changing Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  In reviewing the evidence, it was apparent to the Board that the only reason Petitioner was separated for misconduct was due to his personality disorder diagnosis that triggered administrative separation processing.  Since the Navy was required to process Petitioner for all known reasons, his misconduct from one year prior was included as an additional basis for separation and eventually took precedence over his personality disorder.  In the Board’s opinion, this created an injustice in Petitioner’s record that required correction since his record indicates he has progressed well past his misconduct by the time of his personality disorder diagnosis.  His performance evaluation issued approximately six months post-misconduct indicated he was performing slightly above fleet standards for his paygrade since his non-judicial punishment.  To the Board this documented that his command would not have processed him for misconduct but for personnel regulations that required it.   
 
Regarding Petitioner’s implied arguments for disability benefits, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence for a disability discharge or retirement.  The Board found no evidence that Petitioner’s medical providers felt his back condition merited a referral to the Disability Evaluation System and his record documented he was performing at fleet standards in his paygrade and rate.  But for his personality disorder diagnosis, the Board concluded Petitioner would have been able to continue on active duty. 
 
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.