DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490  
Docket No. 2124-16 
JAN l7 2017 

Dear

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

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 November 2016. Your allegations of error 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 record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review ofyour record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in June 1998. You were treated by mental health providers from December 1998 until you were discharged from the Navy due to suicidal ideations and a number of behavioral issues. On 24 February 2000, non­judicial punishment was imposed on you for falsifying your Personnel Advancement Requirements. You were later admitted for suicidal and homicidal ideations on 7 March 2000 while you were serving your non-judicial punishment. On 20 March 2000, you were diagnosed with a personality disorder by the ship's psychologist and recommended for administrative separation. You were notified on 24 April 2000 that you were being recommended for administrative separation due to commission of a serious offense and your personality disorder. 
You were subsequently discharged on 15 May 2000 for commission of a serious offense and issued a General characterization of service. On 20 April 2006, the Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA) first denied your request for a service connection finding for your depression. The 
VA has continued their finding up though 11 March 2016. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge and honorable characterization of service. You assert that you were suffering from mental health conditions prior to your discharge and you are not qualified for VA treatment. Unfortunately, the Board did not agree with your rationale for relief. First, the Board concluded that you did not qualify for a disability discharge since you were processed for misconduct. Service regulations required administrative separation processing for misconduct to supersede disability processing. Second, the Board was unable to find sufficient evidence in your record that you qualified for disability processing due to the existence of a disability that made you unfit for continued naval service. Despite noting the existence ofmental health symptoms, the Navy mental health provider diagnosed you with personality disorder. It was the opinion of the provider that you were not suitable for naval service due to your personality disorder rather than your other conditions. Therefore the Board concluded you did not qualify for refen-al to the disability evaluation system since personality disorders do not qualify as a disability under service regulations. Third, the Board relied on the V A' s determination that your mental health conditions were not service connected to find that there was insufficient evidence that you were suffering from a disability that was incurred as a result ofyour service. Finally, the Board decided that insufficient mitigation evidence was presented to warrant upgraded your characterization of service. Your commission of a serious offense was a legitimate basis for separation due to the nature of your offense. The Board felt that you were given an appropriate characterization of service since the negative aspects of your misconduct outweighed the positive aspects ofyour performance. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an en-or or injustice wan-anting a correction to your record and denied yow-application. The names and votes of the members of the 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 of the record. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence within one year from the date of the 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