DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Doccket No. 3000-17 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. Your case was reconsidered in.accordance with procedures that 
conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army. 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). You were 
previously denied relief by this Board on 1 December 2016. 

A three•member panel ofthe Board for Correction.ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 15 February 2018. The names and votes of the members of the 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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 ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review ofyour record shows that on 8 January 2007 you enlisted in the United States Navy. 
You had a brief period of acceptable service, but on 24 June 2008, you received non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) for disrespecting a ChiefPetty Officer and were awarded restriction and extra 
duties, reduction in rank (RIR) (suspended), and forfeitures (suspended). On 2 October 2008, 
you were again taken to NJP for unauthorized absence and disobeying a lawful order and 
awarded restriction, extra duties RIR to E-1, and forfeitures (all suspended 6 months). A mere 
two months later, on 10 December 2008, you were found guilty at NJP for assault, disorderly 
conduct, and disobeying a lawful order. You were awarded a period ofrestriction, forfeitures, 
the suspended RIR to E-1 was vacated. Due to your behavior, you were referred for a mental 
health assessment on 15 December 2008, which resulted in you being diagnosed with 
"Adjustment disorder and Personality disorder with narcissistic and borderline features" and 
recommended for separation. You admitted yourself into a civilian treatment facility in June 
2009 after experiencing mental health issues. On 20 June 2009, you were diagnosed with an 
"Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance ofemotions and conduct." On 26 June 2009, you 
received notification that you were being processed for administrative separation and you waived 
your rights. You were discharged from the service on 30 July 2009 with a General 
characterization ofservice based on "Personality Disorder" and assigned a reentry code ofRE-4. 
On 5 December 2011, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for an upgrade to 
your characterization ofservice and narrative reason for separation. On 17 October 2012, the 
Department ofVeterans Affairs found that no service connection exists with your chronic 
schizophrenia condition. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. The Board carefully considered your assertion that you were improperly for a 
personality disorder and never received a mental health examination. Unfortunately, the Board 
disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board highlighted that you received a mental 
health examination on two separate occasions during your period of service. In both 
examinations, you were diagnosed with "Adjustment disorder" and in your 15 December 2008 
exam you were also diagnosed with Personality disorder. Second, the Board concluded that 
there is insufficient evidence in your record to show that you suffered from schizophrenia at the 
time of your discharge. The Board was unable to find a nexus between your behavior and your 
schizophrenia condition due to the lapse in time between your discharge and diagnosis. In this 
regard, the Board concurred with the findings of the Department ofVeterans Affairs that no 
service connection exists. Further, the Board highlighted that the new material you submitted for 
reconsideration actually calls into question whether your 17 October 2012 diagnosis of chronic . 
schizophrenia is accurate. Specifically, the reviewing physician states that "past psychometric 
examinations ofthe veteran ...revealed the veteran to exaggerate the severity and frequency of 
his symptoms. It is this examiner's opinion that the veteran's tendencies to exaggerate at the 
time led to his· diagnosis ofparanoid schizophrenia." The exam also states that you have 
"undergone thorough PTSD evaluation and do not meet the clinical DSM-V criteria for PTSD 
diagnosis." Finally, the Board was also not persuaded by your assertions regarding sexual 
assault and harassment by your co-workers. There was no mention in your service record of 
your allegations and the Board concluded you had multiple opportunities to mention any 
incidents to a mental health provider. Absent evidence to substantiate your assertions, the Board 
did not find them credible. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice 
warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. 

It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director