DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 5883-20 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear Petitioner: 

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 you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitations was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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, to include the Kurta Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 

The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would 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. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 25 January 2005. On 9 March 2005, you were diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood; the notes state that you complained of difficulty sleeping, and you were waking several times throughout the night thinking about your family. The notes further reference the Recruit Evaluation Report completed by your Recruit Division Commander (RDC) who wrote that you were observed sleepwalking by the compartment’s Night Security Watch during the early morning hours of 5 March 2005. During the evaluation in March 2005, you reported that your mother recently informed you of a previous history of frequent sleepwalking. It was determined that you had a sleepwalking disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. On 11 March 2005, Commanding Officer (CO), Recruit Training Command directed that you be administratively separated on the basis of defective enlistment and inductions, erroneous enlistment. Your CO noted your diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood and sleepwalking disorder, and stated that your psychiatric conditions affected your potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty and posed a risk if you were retained in the naval service. You were discharged from the Navy on 17 March 2005, on the basis of Erroneous Entry (Other); you received an uncharacterized Entry Level Separation and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 

You submitted an application to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) and requested an upgrade to an honorable discharge (no change to narrative reason requested). You asserted to NDRB that the diagnosis made by the military medical authorities was incorrect. NDRB found that a medical evaluation of 20 June 2005 and mental health report of 17 November 2006, both provided by you, did not invalidate the earlier diagnosis made by military medical authorities while you were on active duty. On 29 August 2007, NDRB notified you that it found that your entry level separation was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. 

In your application to the Board, you request an upgrade to an honorable discharge with a narrative reason of separation to reflect a medical discharge or another narrative reflecting a more appropriate reason. You assert that you suffered from Anxiety Disorder/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Depression that is service connected. You contend that during your time in the Navy, you were pounced on by a shipmate from behind. You assert that the incident ultimately led to you having nightmares/terrors and an episode of sleepwalking. You provide statements from your spouse (dated 6 August 2020) and your mother (undated) in support of your application. Your mother’s letter states that your sister slept walked as a child but that you never experienced any sleep issues in your youth. You also claim that you were recently diagnosed by Veterans Affairs (VA) with a service connected disability that arose/developed during basic training. You contend that you should have been offered a chance at rehabilitation. 

As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed your request, and issued an Advisory Opinion dated 17 April 2021. The Advisory Opinion notes that your Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical records from 2018 to 2020 indicated ongoing treatment for Major Depression and Anxiety Disorder with reference to a physical assault in recruit training as the original traumatic stressor. The Advisory Opinion concludes that the preponderance of objective evidence supports your contention of undiagnosed Anxiety Disorder incurred during your military training that was attributed to Adjustment Disorder incurred during military training (due in part to your lack of disclosure of the physical assault.) 

The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo, which included the Advisory Opinion’s conclusions, and the information you submitted in support of your application including the VA treatment records that you provided and the statement from your mother. The Board noted that you did not disclose a physical assault during your March 2005 medical evaluation, and that your in-service medical records do not reflect injuries related to an assault. Nonetheless, the Board found that even in consideration of the conclusions of the Advisory Opinion and your contentions of a service-connected mental health condition (Anxiety Disorder/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) that resulted in sleep walking, the Board found that you are not entitled to a characterized discharge because you had not served over 180 days at the time of your notification of administrative separation proceedings. The Board evaluated the nature of your service during the 1 month and 23 days and found that even in light of your allegations of suffering from a mental health condition that impacted you, that the nature of your service was such that an honorable discharge is not warranted to correct either an error or an injustice. The Board found that you were properly discharged within your first 6 months of active duty on the basis of Adjustment Disorder and Sleepwalking following a March 2005 medical evaluation, and that your 1 month and 23 days of active duty service did not meet the length of service requirement to merit an upgrade from an entry level separation to an honorable discharge. 

The Board also considered whether you were properly discharged with an Entry Level Separation on the basis of sleep walking. In light of the 9 March 2005 Medical Record entry, the Board noted that you were observed sleepwalking on 28 February 2005 by the Roving Watch, your RDCs sent two separated sworn witness accounts of two separated episodes of sleepwalking, you were evaluated by a Clinical Psychologist, and you self-reported that your mother informed you that you had a previous history of frequent sleepwalking behavior until the age of 10. Based on the RDC reports, your clinic evaluation, and your self-report, the Board found that you were properly diagnosed with sleepwalking (Existing Prior to Entry) in March 2005, and that you were properly administratively discharged with an Entry Level Separation based on the diagnosis. The Board did note the letter you submitted from your mother in support of your application, but found that the undated letter provided approximately a decade and a half after your discharge did not overcome the information reflected in your service record contemporaneous with your administrative discharge processing in 2005. 

The Boards considered your contention that you suffered from a mental health condition that was incurred or aggravated during your military service, and your request that you receive an honorable discharge and a change to your narrative reason for separation (to include a medical discharge/retirement). The Board noted that under SECNAVINST 1850.4 series, a medical discharge/retirement is authorized when an individual has a compensable condition or disability that renders the individual unfit to perform his or her duties. 

Adjustment Disorders may render an individual administratively unable to perform duties rather than medically unable, and may become the basis for administrative separation but do not constitute a physical disability despite the fact they may render a member unable to perform his or her duties. The Board found that even in consideration of your post-discharge VA rating and treatment for a service-connected mental health condition and taking into account the Advisory Opinion, there is insufficient evidence to overcome your 17 March 2005 entry level administrative separation on the basis of Defective Enlistment/Erroneous Enlistment. The Board found that you were properly evaluated and diagnosed in March 2005 with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Sleepwalking Disorder. The Board found that the evaluation and diagnosis issued in March 2005 does not appear to have been made unjustly or in error. When making its determination, the Board noted that you appear to have candidly reported a pre-service issue of sleepwalking and you were observed on more than one occasion to be sleepwalking. Furthermore, the Board considered that you did not disclose the alleged physical assault to Medical at the time of your March 2005 evaluation. Accordingly the Board concluded that your current narrative separation reason of “Erroneous Entry (Other)” was not issued in error or unjustly, and does not merit corrective action. 

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, 
7/9/2021 

4