From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Sr Medical Advisor CORB ltr 1910 CORB: 002 of 23 Jan 20 (3) Dir CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 30 Jan 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to place him on the disability retirement list, change his reentry code, and issue a separation code that would prevent recoupment of his selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). Alternatively, he requests to have his narrative reason for separation changed to condition not a disability. Petitioner previously petitioned the Board and was advised that his application had been disapproved. His case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 April 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner entered active-duty service in the Navy in October 1999. Prior to entering active duty, he completed a pre-enlistment report of medical history in February 1999 that reported no history of suicide attempts, depression, excessive worry, or nervous trouble. He completed another report of medical history on 23 November 1999 for Nuclear Field Duty assignment in which he similarly reported no history of mental health-related symptoms. Petitioner was subsequently assigned to a submarine and served successfully through early 2004. c. In early March 2004, Petitioner reported to medical complaining of mental health symptoms and first reported a preservice history of mental health issues. There is some dispute regarding the nature of the incident, but Petitioner reported cutting his finger with a knife around age 12 due to mental health symptoms. He was eventually diagnosed with a personality disorder and schizoid personality disorder. d. Petitioner was referred to mental health based on his initial diagnosis and symptoms, and he was seen on 5 March 2004. He again disclosed a preservice history of mental health conditions, including suicidal thoughts. He was placed on medication and diagnosed with major depressive disorder and schizoid personality disorder. On his follow-up appointment on 8 March 2004, major depressive disorder was ruled out, and Petitioner was diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder. Medical notes indicate that Petitioner stopped taking his medication. e. Petitioner was seen again on 17 March 2004 for his mental health symptoms. Medical notes indicate he completed the and –Third Edition (MCMI-III), with both tests validating the personality disorder diagnosis. Based on his diagnosis and potential for harm, he was recommended for administrative separation. f. On 23 March 2004, Petitioner was notified of administrative separation processing for convenience of the government due to his personality disorder. His record does not contain any record of an administrative counseling that allowed him an opportunity to overcome performance deficiencies related to his personality disorder. In fact, Petitioner was issued a performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2004 in which he received positive performance comments along with a promotion and retention recommendation. His trait average of 3.0 documented that he met performance standards for his paygrade and rate during the preceding 12 months. Despite his performance, Petitioner was discharged on 16 April 2004 after being medically cleared for separation. g. After his discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated Petitioner for depressive disorder and initially assigned him a 10% disability rating. His rating was later increased retroactively to 30% after a successful appeal. Examination notes show that Petitioner’s personality disorder was ruled out based on results from a second MMPI-2 test given to Petitioner by the VA. h. This Board denied Petitioner’s initial application on 19 July 2007 after determining that the evidence supported the Navy’s personality disorder diagnosis. i. In advisory opinions (AOs) attached at enclosures (2) and (3), the office having cognizance over Petitioner’s request to be placed on the disability retirement list determined that the evidence did not support a disability retirement. The AOs concluded that Petitioner’s personality disorder diagnosis was supported by the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III test results. Additionally, the AOs noted that the evidence documented that Petitioner’s difficulties were associated with his personality disorder issues rather than depression symptoms. Petitioner provided rebuttal evidence that disputed the AOs. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation should be changed to Secretarial Authority based on the Navy’s failure to allow Petitioner sufficient time to overcome performance deficiencies associated with his mental health condition. The Board relied on Petitioner’s performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2004, issued only 8 days prior to his notification of administrative separation processing, as evidence that Petitioner was performing at fleet standards despite his mental health symptoms. While the Board found evidence Petitioner likely had performance deficiencies related to his mental health condition, such as his medically documented desire to escalate self-destructive behaviors, the Board concluded that the Navy failed to issue Petitioner an administrative warning identifying the performance deficiencies and did not allow him an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies. Based on this finding, the Board determined that his narrative reason for separation should be changed to Secretarial Authority to correct the error in his record, with assignment of a SPD code and reentry code consistent with this change. However, the Board found no evidence that Petitioner completed his enlistment or met medical qualifications for reenlistment based on his mental health diagnoses. Therefore, they Board concluded that the evidence did not support making a change to his record solely for the purpose of waiving recoupment of Petitioner’s SRB or allowing him to reenlist. Regarding Petitioner’s request to be placed on the disability retirement list for depression, the Board found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support relief. In order to qualify for military disability benefits, a Service member must be unfit for continued naval service. Unfitness is defined as an inability to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating due to a qualifying disability condition. In Petitioner’s case, using the same performance evaluation ending on 15 March 2004, the Board concluded that the evidence shows he was performing at fleet standards for his paygrade and rating. The comments on the evaluation state Petitioner “effectively completes all divisional work assigned and is improving as a mechanic every day.” He is further described as a “solid administrator” who is “becoming a vital part of a hard charging Machinery Division.” In the Board’s opinion, this evaluation, issued approximately one month prior to his discharge from the Navy and after his mental health diagnoses, documents Petitioner’s ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating despite his mental health symptoms. The Board was not persuaded by the VA’s assignment of a 30% rating for Petitioner’s major depressive disorder condition, since eligibility for compensation and pension disability ratings by the VA is tied to the establishment of service connection and is manifestation-based without a requirement that unfitness for military duty be demonstrated. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority,” with associated required changes to his record consistent with this change. Petitioner will be issued a new DD Form 214. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.