DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9981-19 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) Senior Medical Advisor CORB letter 1910 CORB: 002 of 27 May 2020 (3) Director CORB letter 1910 CORB: 001 of 9 June 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 or change his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Petitioner 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 23 July 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 November 2003. After a suicidal gesture in June 2004, he was diagnosed with Passive-Aggressive, Narcissistic and Obsessive Compulsive personality traits but returned to duty. Petitioner subsequently served without incident until non­judicial punishment was imposed on him for disobeying an order and disrespect on 20 September 2006. During this time, Petitioner was seen multiple times by a mental health provider who diagnosed him with Passive-Aggressive and Narcissistic personality traits, Adjustment Disorder, and Schizoid Personality Disorder. After initially being determined to be fit for duty, on 6 October 2006, Petitioner was recommended for administrative separation for unsuitability for continued service due to his personality disorder. As a result, he was notified of administrative separation processing on 7 October 2006 and discharged on 2 November 2006 with “Personality Disorder” listed as his narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214. c. Post-discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated Petitioner for Major Depressive Disorder at 30% in November 2010. In April 2012, the VA mental health provider opined that Petitioner did not have a personality disorder while on active duty but suffered from Major Depressive Disorder. Petitioner later applied to this Board requesting disability benefits but was denied based on lack of evidence. 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 medical record from 2006 supports his personality disorder diagnosis based on documented evidence that he had a lifelong somewhat eccentric and idiosyncratic personality style resulting in recurrent social, and, later, occupational adjustment difficulties. Based on this finding, a conclusion was reached that Petitioner’s personality disorder diagnosis was, more likely than not, correct. The 2012 VA medical opinion was determined not to be as probative since it was issued over five years after Petitioner’s release from active duty. Petitioner provided rebuttal evidence that was considered by the Board arguing that opinions contained in enclosures (2) and (3) were not supported by the evidence. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief. Specifically, the Board determined that the interests of justice supports changing Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority to eliminate any stigma associated with Personality Disorder being listed on his DD Form 214. Despite this finding, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence did not support placing Petitioner on the disability retirement list for Major Depressive Disorder. In order to qualify for military disability benefits, a service member must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a compensable disability condition. In Petitioner’s case, the Board concluded the preponderance of theevidence supports his 2006 personality disorder diagnosis. Since personality disorder was not considered a compensable disability condition under the disability regulations, the Board concluded he was properly discharged at the convenience of the government without disability benefits. As previously discussed, Petitioner was seen several times by a mental health provider between 20 September 2006 and 6 October 2006. During these evaluations, it was documented that Petitioner expressed unusual views and beliefs, described himself as being “weird” his entire life, and expressed that he had difficulty fitting into any social group. His chain of command also described Petitioner as “weird” in a child-like and immature way. Based on these observations, Petitioner was diagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder and recommended for administrative separation despite being psychiatrically fit for duty. It was the opinion of the mental health provider that Petitioner’s personalitydisorder was unsuitable for continued service based on a history of not wanting to follow safety protocol thus creating a danger to himself and others. The 2012 VA medical opinion concluded Petitioner was misdiagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder. The opinion states people with Schizoid Personality Disorders commonly “behave oddly and have unusual beliefs (such as aliens). They cling to these beliefs so strongly that is prevents them from having relationships.” It goes on to describe other common characteristics such as discomfort in social situations, inappropriate displays of feelings, no close friends, off behavior or appearance, off speech, and odd beliefs, fantasies or preoccupations. The opinion further states that these individuals are often described as odd or eccentric. After review of Petitioner medical record, the VA concluded that “none of the above applied to the veteran while he was in the US Navy.” After reviewing medical evidence in Petitioner’s case, the Board determined the weight of the evidence in the case does not support the 2012 VA opinion that Petitioner was misdiagnosed by the Navy. TheBoard noted that Petitioner’s 2006 medical record documented a number of the characteristics attributable to individuals with Schizoid Personality Disorders according to the 2012 VA opinion. Specifically, Petitioner held unusual beliefs such as believing everyone should speak in a Victorian language style or believing Esquire magazine contained all of life’s answers. He admitted to not fitting into any social groups because of a lifetime of self-described weirdness. Similarly, his chain of command described Petitioner as acting child-like and weird. In addition, there was also documented inappropriate displays of feeling such as Petitioner ripping his uniform, with his teeth, after being punished for misconduct. Despite the existence of the above described characteristics in Petitioner’s military medical record, the 2012 VA opinion simply concluded that “none” were exhibited by him while in the Navy. As a result, the Board did not find the 2012 VA opinion persuasive and substantially concurred with the advisory opinions in the case. Finally, the Board did not agree that Petitioner being a danger to himself and other equated to a finding of unfitness for a disability condition. The 2006 medical evidence clearly stated that Petitioner was psychologically fit for duty but unsuitable for continued naval service due to his personality disorder and the associated behaviors. As discussed above, personality disorders are not considered compensable disability conditions according to disability regulations. Accordingly, the Board concluded any behaviors attributable to a personality disorder, even those considered dangerous, are also not compensable under the regulations. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing Petitioner’s narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority” and his SPD code to “JFF.” Petitioner will be issued a new DD Form 214 consistent with this change. 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.