Docket No. 7502-19 
Ref: Signature Date 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2020.  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 opinions contained in Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 22 April 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 28 April 2020 along with your response to the opinions. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in April 2014 and started receiving treatment for depression and anxiety symptoms in June 2014.  You were diagnosed with Depression just prior to having non-judicial punishment imposed on 19 February 2015 for an orders violation.  Despite the non-judicial punishment, you received a performance evaluation ending on 15 July 2015 that documented you were performing at fleet standards.  However, you subsequently suffered an electrocution at work and had another non-judicial punishment imposed on 26 August 2015.  On 28 October 2015, you reported to mental health reporting multiple depression related symptoms and admitted to drinking alcohol heavily.  This was one day after you passed out in a parking lot after taking too much cold medication.  Eventually, you were diagnosed with Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder and placed on limited duty in November 2015.  In December 2015, you commenced attending Mind Body Wellness psychotherapy sessions before you were transferred to another command.  Your transfer performance evaluation documented a 2.67 trait average based on your non-judicial punishment and failure to pass the Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA).  You continued to be seen by mental health providers in early 2016 and an attended alcohol rehabilitation program.  On 3 May 2016, you were returned to full duty status, diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and recommended for administrative separation.  Despite this recommendation, you were deemed qualified for worldwide assignment and earned a performance evaluation trait average of 

3.0 on 15 July 2016. You also completed the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program on 23 July 2016. Subsequently, you were medically cleared to be separated from active duty before your 29 July 2016 discharge with a General characterization of service for condition not a disability.  Post-discharge, you have been diagnosed with Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In 2017, you were hospitalized for psychiatric symptoms.  Your mental health conditions were determined to be service connected and assigned disability ratings starting with 50% in 2016 to 100% as of 2019.  You were also rated by the VA for a number of other service connected disability conditions. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve to be placed on the disability retirement list or recalled to active duty for processing through the Disability Evaluation System.  You also request an upgrade to your characterization of service.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  

First, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to a disability condition at the time of your discharge from the Navy.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions contained in Psychiatric Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 22 April 2020 and Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 28 April 2020.  Specifically, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not show that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a disability condition.  The Board noted that you were medically cleared for full duty in May 2016 and determined to be worldwide deployable.  Additionally, your July 2016 performance evaluation documented that you were performing at fleet standards for your paygrade.  All of these factors led the Board to conclude you did not meet the standard for unfitness despite the potential that you may have been suffering from some mental health symptoms.  The Board was not convinced by your post-discharge decline in mental health status since these symptoms never caused a significant occupational impairment while you were on active duty.  In your 19 April 2016 mental health evaluation, there was no evidence of significant anxiety, mania, psychosis, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms. It was determined that your unhappiness with the military environment was the primary factor of your symptoms and resulted in the adjustment disorder diagnosis.  Based on this medical evidence, the Board agreed with the advisory opinion that you showed no symptoms consistent with your post-discharge diagnoses.  So while the Board considered the VA medical evidence and the mental health opinion you provided in your rebuttal evidence, they concluded that the mental health reports issued contemporaneously with your active duty service was more probative on the issue of your fitness for continued naval service at that time. Moreover, the Board did not find your VA ratings persuasive in determining unfitness for continued naval service 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. Finally, the Board also considered that you were found to be medically fit for separation just prior to your discharge from the Navy.  The Manual of the Medical Department Chapter 15-20 requires separation examinations and evaluations for active duty members and states “comprehensive evaluations are conducted for the purposes of ensuring that Service members have not developed any medical conditions while in receipt of base pay that might constitute a disability that should be processed by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and to ensure Servicemembers are physically qualified for recall to additional periods of active duty.  Thus, the standards for being physically qualified to separate are the same as those being qualified to continue active duty Service … .” In your case, your separation physical noted your existing medical conditions but documented that no disability conditions existed that required processing through the PEB.  Thus, after considering all of the evidence, the Board concluded your placement on the disability retirement list was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence nor was your recall to active duty for processing through the Disability Evaluation System. 

Second, the Board considered your discharge upgrade despite the fact you failed to exhaust your administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board.  In doing so, the Board applied liberal consideration to the facts of your case based on your post-discharge mental health diagnoses and medical evidence you were, more likely than not, symptomatic for these conditions while on active duty.  Despite applying liberal consideration, the Board concluded that an upgrade to your characterization of service was not supported by the evidence.  As previously discussed, you have two documented non-judicial punishments in slightly over two years of active duty service during which you earned an overall performance trait average slightly less than 3.0. To the Board, this documented generally honest and faithful service during which significant negative aspects of your conduct outweighed the positive aspects of your service. In reaching this conclusion, the Board balanced your PFA failures and two incidents of misconduct against a relatively brief period of active duty and performance that generally met fleet standards. In the end, they felt there was insufficient quality service to overcome the two incidents of misconduct and the PFA failures. Additionally, in examining these incidents of misconduct, the Board found no nexus between your diagnosed mental health conditions and the misconduct for which you received non-judicial punishment.  The first incident of misconduct involved you failing to sign out on liberty and the second incident of misconduct involved your failure to wear proper personal protective equipment.  In the Board’s opinion, there was no evidence either of these acts of misconduct were influenced by your mental health condition at the time nor was there a reasonable rationale to connect them.  Accordingly, the Board found no basis to consider your mental health condition as mitigation evidence for the purpose of upgrading your characterization of service.  Therefore, since you failed to earn the minimum trait average necessary to earn an Honorable characterization of service and significant aspects of your active duty service outweigh the positive aspects, the Board concluded your General characterization of service remains appropriate.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your 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 matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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.