DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 5687-17 FEB 05, 2019 Dear , This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 United States Code §1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2018. The names and votes of the members of the panel 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Bureau of Personnel (BUPERS) letter of 29 January 2018; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment. A copy of this advisory opinion is again enclosed. On 21 June 2001, you entered a period of active duty. On 7 February, 8 February, and 12 February 2002, you were evealuted in the Outpatient Mental Health Clinic, . On 28 March 2002, you signed an Administrative Separation notification. On 28 March 2002, you were discharged. On 31 July 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigned you 50% disability. On 29 March 2016, the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded your discharge to Honorable. On 30 May 2017, the BCNR changed your SPD code, RE code, and reason for separation on your certificate of release or discharge from active duty (DD Form 214). You requested to receive service credit to fulfill your enlistment contract, back pay with interest, to remove all references to diagnosis of a personality disorder from your record, and a full retirement. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, to include your assertions. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that your contention of your diagnosis of Personality Disorder violated MILPERSMAN 1910-122. The instruction reads, "Separation on the basis of personality disorder is authorized only if a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or PhD-level psychologist utilizing reference (a), and per procedures established by the Navy, concludes that the disorder is so severe that the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired." You contend that because your primary mental health clinician was a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW), your rights were violated. However, the administrative separation process requires an entirely separate assessment and diagnosis with a disposition recommendation. It is highly likely that the Petitioner's separation assessment replete with diagnosis and recommendation was conducted by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist as per MILPERSMAN 1910-122. In fact, psychiatric separation examinations are typically not scheduled with the Petitioner's primary mental health provider in order to prevent potential bias. Although the service record does not contain the specific administrative separation assessment documentation, it is highly unlikely that your primary mental health provider (LCSW) also completed the separation assessment as per MILPERSMAN 1910-122. A document dated 12 February 2002 from the Department Head of the Mental Health Department, indicates that you were recommended for separation and evaluated in the Mental Health Clinic. This does not indicate that the LCSW mentioned above performed the administrative separation assessment and furthermore, psychiatrists or psychologists fill the role of Department Head among Navy Mental Health facilities. Although this latter document does not reveal the credentials of the Department Head, it can very much be assumed that the author was a psychiatrist or psychologist and thus had oversight regarding the sailor's discharge assessment and would therefore align all practices in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-122. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board could not find any error or injustice and concluded that because you were discharged properly before your enlistment was finished, the Board had no justification to grant any service credit, any back pay with interest, to remove all references of diagnosis of a personality disorder, and award you a full retirement. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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, Executive Director