DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6725-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl:(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 14 April 2020 (3) Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 24 April 2020 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to place him on the disability retirement list. 2. The Board, consisting of , , and , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 June 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 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 regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner entered active duty with the Navy in June 1996. On 3 April 1997, Petitioner was seen by mental health for a suicide gesture and ideations. At that time, he provided an extensive history of preservice mental health issues and behavior problems that included juvenile delinquency, hospitalization, psychiatric evaluations, depression, and previous suicidal ideations. He also reported current mental health symptoms and alcohol abuse related to stress associated with his personal relationships and the military environment. He was diagnosed with Personality Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with a recommendation for administrative separation. As a result, Petitioner was notified of administrative separation processing on 4 April 1997 and discharged with an Honorable characterization of service for personality disorder. His DD Form 214 states “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation. c. Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continued Petitioner’s personality disorder and ADHD diagnoses but also diagnosed him with depression in 2014. This resulted in assignment of a 70% disability rating for depression. Petitioner was also granted entitlement to individual unemployability in 2016. His VA records also document an allegation mistreatment during basic training, including sexual assault. These allegations formed the basis of his positive screen for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 2014. d. In correspondence 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 does not support relief. The opinion states that Petitioner’s depression and PTSD conditions may be service-connected but was not the primary basis for his occupational impairment. In their opinion, Petitioner’s personality disorder, which was also diagnosed in 2014 with his depression, was the primary basis for his inability to perform his duties. Petitioner provided a rebuttal statement that his administrative separation documents his unfitness for continued naval service. Since VA’s determined that a service connection exists for his depression, he was, more likely than not, unfit for depression or PTSD at the time of his discharge. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. The Board concluded that Petitioner’s current DD Form 214 creates a stigma for Petitioner due to the assignment of “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation. The Board noted this practice is inconsistent with current policy and determined it appropriate to change it to Secretarial Authority. Regarding Petitioner’s request to be placed on the disability retirement list for other mental health conditions, the Board disagreed with his rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in enclosures (2) and (3). Specifically, the Board found that Petitioner’s primary impairment was from his personality disorder and not depression or PTSD. The Board agreed with the advisory opinions that despite the possibility Petitioner’s depression and PTSD may be service connected, it does not mean he was symptomatic at the time of his discharge or that it was the basis of his impairment towards continued service. The Board relied on Petitioner’s post-discharge medical examination reports that showed he continued to suffer from personality disorder symptoms many years after his discharge. Further, the Board felt the medical diagnosis issued contemporaneous with Petitioner’s active duty service was more reliable in determining the primary basis for his impairment. Additionally, the Board did not find Petitioner’s arguments of unfitness persuasive based on the Navy’s determination that he was unsuitable for continued naval service due to a personality disorder. The Board concluded that a service member may be determined to not suitable for military service for a number of reasons including physical and mental conditions that do not amount to a disability. Since Petitioner was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder and this was determined to be his primary impairment for continued naval service, the Board determined that the Navy appropriately discharged him at the convenience of the government since personality disorders are not considered a qualifying disability conditions under the Disability Evaluation System. Finally, the Board noted that Petitioner failed to disclose his extensive history of mental health issues on the report of medical history during enlistment physical. While it is unclear whether Petitioner would have qualified for enlistment at the time, the Board felt that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that he should have been discharge for fraudulent enlistment or, at the very least, erroneous enlistment based on Petitioner’s failure to document his preservice medical history on the report of medical history. In either case, the Board felt this was an additional reason why it was inappropriate to grant Petitioner military disability benefit. While the Board did not discount Petitioner’s current disability conditions or allegations of mistreatment and sexual assault in the military, they concluded his disability conditions do not qualify for placement on the disability retirement list under the Disability Evaluation System. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner was discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “secretarial authority,” SPD code of “JFF,” and reenlistment code of “RE-1J.” Petitioner will be issued a new DD Form 214 consistent with the changes ordered by the Board. 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 Regulation, 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 6/9/2020 Deputy Director