DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 1559-16 
DEC 27 2016 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 3 November 2016. Your allegations oferror and injustice were 
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the 
proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your 
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval reco_rd and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows you entered active duty with the Navy in October 2002. On 14 
February 2005, you were diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder and recommended 
for administrative separation. After acknowledging your rights, you were discharged with a 
General characterization of service based on your personality disorder. After initially being 
denied relief by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) in 2007, your narrative reason for 
separation was changed to Secretarial Authority by the NDRB in 2015. However, your 
characterization of service was determined to be correct and your request to be upgraded to an 
Honorable characterization ofservice was denied. On 18 May 2015, the NDRB decision was 
affirmed by the Joint Service Review Agency: 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that the NDRB abused their discretion through 
an arbitrary and capricious decision not to upgrade your characterization of service. You assert 
that the General characterization is not supported by your military record since there are no 
documented incidents of misconduct memorialized through counseling statements or other 
judicial or non-judicial proceedings. You also provided evidence that you possessed medical 
conditions that may have influenced your behavior while on active duty. Unfortunately, the 
Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board concluded that the lack of 
evidence that the command took any action to address your behavior beyoncl recording it in the 
performance evaluation of 4 March 2005 did not preclude the issuance ofa General 
characterization of service. In the Board's opinion, your admission that you committed 
misconduct through an incident ofunauthorized absence and that you experienced work related 
difficulties with your supervisors substantiated your performance evaluation and commanding 
officer's comments in your separation paperwork that your behavior contributed to a breakdown 
of good order and discipline. Based on this evidence, the Board concurred with the findings of 
the 2015 NDRB decision and rationale that no error exists with your characterization of service. 
In addition, the Board determined that the medical evidence you provided does not support a 
finding of an injustice warranting a change to your characterization of service. The Board 
determined that this evidence was insufficient mitigation evidence to overcome your 
performance deficiencies that led to your General characterization ofservice. Accordingly, the 
Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied 
your application. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon 
request. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state 
personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board 
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board 
determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the 
evidence ofthe record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew evidence 
within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously 
considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director