DEPARTMENT OF THE N’~Avv
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX

      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                         ELP:jdh
                         Docket No: 6951-00
                         18 May 2001
Dear

      A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session
      considered your application and a majority recommended that your
      naval record be corrected as set forth in the attached report dated
      29 March 2001. In accordance with current regulations, the designated
      representative of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower
      and Reserve Affairs conducted an independent review of the Board’s
      proceedings and approved the minority recommendation that your
      application be denied.

      You are advised that reconsideration of your case will be granted
      only upon the presentation of new and material evidence not
      previously considered by the Board and then, only upon the
      recommendation of the Board and approval by the Assistant Secretary.

      It is regretted that a more favorable reply cannot be made.
                                           Sincerely,



                                           W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                           Executive Director
























                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

                                2 NAVY ANNEX

                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                             ELP
                                              Docket No. 6951-00
                                              29 March 2001




From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:   Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ~


Ref:  (a) 10 U.S.C.1552

End:  (1) Case Summary
                         (2) Subject’s Naval Record

1.    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former
enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to this Board
requesting, in effect, that his reenlistment code be changed.

2.    The Board, consisting of Ms. Wiley, Messrs. Ivins and McPartlin
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 March 2001
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,
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’s application to the Board was filed in a timely
manner.

     c.    Petitioner enlisted in the’ Navy on 30 June 1999 for four years
at age 18. His record reflects that he was referred to a mental health unit
due to his disclosure of a prior history
of suicidal gestures. He denied any prior history of mental health care but
claimed that he had undergone obsessive thoughts of a sexually violent
nature for the past few years, and had developed an admiration for “serial
killers” and feared that one day he might become one. ‘He indicated that he
was conflicted by these thoughts, but enjoyed and spent a great deal of
time on them. He further claimed that his thoughts of sexual violence were
about females ranging from infancy to adulthood, and he had homicidal
thoughts toward strangers, classmates, and his family. These thoughts
intensified when he was angry and most recently he had become interested in
“racist and KKK” philosophy. He also reported that he had struggled with
depression and suicidal ideation since he was in the fifth grade, and since
arriving at recruiting training he had experienced depression, suicidal
thoughts, frequent crying, impaired concentration, irritability, and
intense anger towards his company commander and other recruits. Petitioner
was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, pedophilia, and sexual
sadism, all of which existed prior to enlistment. He was considered a
potential risk for harm to himself and others if retained, and was
recommended for an entry level separation.

     d.    On 3 August 1999 Petitioner was notified that administrative
separation processing was being initiated by reason of convenience of the
government due to physical or mental conditions as evidenced by a major
depressive disorder, pedophilia, and sexual sadism. He was advised of his
procedural rights. He declined to consult with legal counsel or submit a
statement in his own behalf, and waived the right to have his case reviewed
by the general court—martial convening authority.

     e.    The discharge authority directed an uncharacterized entry level
separation by reason of a depressive disorder, pedophilia, and sexual
sadism. On 6 August 1999, Petitioner was discharged by reason of erroneous
enlistment and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

     f.    Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3E or RE-4
reenlistment code to individuals discharged by reason of erroneous
enlistment. An RE-3E reenlistment code means that the individual is
recommended for reenlistment except for the disqualifying factor which led
to the discharge. An RE-4 reenlistment code means an individual is
ineligible for reenlistment without prior approval from Commander, Navy
Personnel Command.

                                      2
     g.    Petitioner states that he initially elected to enlist in the
machinist mate rating, but realized that would be a mistake since he wanted
a rating that would most likely be shore based. His selection was changed
to aviation ordnance and he was later informed in recruit training that
this rating was not an entry rating into “special boat units or beach
masters” as alleged by the recruiter, and that he would definitely be going
to sea. Petitioner claims he developed bronchitis and knowing that he had
been granted a waiver for asthma, believed that if he told the Navy doctor
that his asthma was giving him problems throughout recruit training, the
doctor would see the prior waiver and recommend discharge. However, the
asthma test came back negative and an antibiotic cured the bronchitis. A
few days later, at the suggestion of his brother, he reported to his chief
petty officer that he was a homosexual. This attempt to get discharged also
did not work. However, a second class petty officer asked him if he wanted
out of the Navy and he replied that he did. The petty officer filled out
some paperwork for him to see a psychiatrist and told him to tell the
psychiatrist that he was depressed and suicidal, and had attempted suicide
at an early age. Petitioner claimed that he had studied psychology in
school and to ensure that he was discharged, he made the psychiatrist
believe he hated society and was such a disturbed and perverted individual
so that the diagnosis would recommend discharge.

     h.    Petitioner now expresses sincere regret and embarrassment for
the earlier lies that resulted in his discharge, and realizes that he is
responsible for the actions which led to his discharge. He provides letters
of recommendation and letters from his employer and recruiter to support
his application.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, a majority of
the Board, Ms. Wiley and Mr. McPartlin, concludes that Petitioner’s request
warrants favorable action. In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner had
no disciplinary or performance problems during his short period of service.
The majority especially notes the letters of reference and his sincere
statement explaining the actions which resulted in discharge. The majority
believes that he is truly remorseful and ashamed of his actions, and his
realization that only he is


                                      3
to blame is a sign that he has matured from the experience. The majority
does not believe his actions warrant the most restrictive RE—4 reenlistment
code and he should not be restricted from further service if he can show
that the actions which led to his discharge will not recur. • Accordingly,
the majority concludes that it would be appropriate and just to change the
reenlistment code to RE—3E to correspond with the reason for discharge.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

     a.    That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4
reenlistment code, assigned on 6 August 1999, to RE-3E.

     b.    That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to
the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged
from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to
the record in the future.

     c.    That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval
record be returned to the Board together with a copy of this Report of
Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such
purpose, with no cross references being made a part of Petitioner’s naval
record.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

Mr. Ivins disagrees with the majority and concludes that Petitioner’s
request does not warrant favorable action. The minority finds it difficult
to determine which one of Petitioner’s statements is true, the one he made
at the time to extract himself from his enlistment, or the one he is making
now. It is well established in law that an individual who perpetrates a
fraud in order to be discharged should not benefit from the fraud when it
is discovered. The minority notes that Petitioner provides no medical
evidence that the Navy’s diagnosis was erroneous or invalid. The minority
believes Petitioner is sincere and regrets his past actions, but finds no
basis for giving him another opportunity to manipulate the system when he
finds military service has again become distasteful or not to his liking.

In view of the foregoing, the minority finds no injustice warranting
corrective action.


                                      4
                                            4,




MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

The Petitioner’s request be denied.

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.





ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and
action.
MAJORI      PORT:
Reviewe and approved:
MINORITY REPORT:
Reviewed
                                                                N’
and approved:
      JOSEPH G. LYNCh  MAY 162001
    • Assistant General Counsel
    (Manpower And Reserve Affairs)






                                      5
(