D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E   N A V Y  

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N  OF  N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   20370-5100 

WMP 
Docket No.  08335-01 
18 April 2002 

From: 
To : 

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
Secretary of the Navy 

Subj : 

Ref: 

(a) 10 U.S.C.  1552 

Encl: 

(1) Case Summary 
(2) Subject's naval record 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 
former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board 
requesting, in effect, changes in his reason for separation and 
reenlistment code. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Messrs. Taylor, Kim, and Agresti 
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 17 
April 2002 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 23 February 1995 at 

age 26 in pay grade E-3.  while in recruit training, he submitted 
an application to attend Aviation Officer's Candidate School 
(AOCS), which was disapproved. 

d.  Petitioner received a psychological assessment on 25 

July 1995 in which he reported symptoms of subjective depression, 
mild concentration difficulties, appetite disturbance (with no 
reported weight loss), and mild sleep disturbance.  The 
psychologist noted these symptoms were related to Petitioner's 

status as a former civilian professional who enlisted in the Navy 
with a promise that he could be commissioned as an officer in the 
flight training program.  His commissioning package was recently 
denied, which precipitated the onset of psychological symptoms. 
The psychologist concluded that although Petitioner did not have 
a personality disorder or other psychiatric impairment, he should 
be separated from the naval service at the convenience of the 
government. 

e.On 26 July 1995 Petitioner requested immediate separation 
for personal, professional, and financial reasons.  This request 
was disapproved by the commanding officer with the comment, "You 
have an obligation, which you volunteered to servell. 

f.  On 15 August 1995, Petitioner was referred by the command 
chaplain for another psychological evaluation due to llstressu. 
During the assessment, he indicated increased psychological 
distress including gastro-intestinal complaints, headache, 
insomnia, increased irritability resulting in arguments with 
shipmates and his wife; and subjective feelings of gvdepressionu 
and feeling "degraded and humiliatedvq by  enlisted life.  The 
psychologist noted a sense of entitlement and grandiosity in that 
Petitioner was adamant in his belief that his education and 
ability level warranted more than his present status as an 
enlisted sailor.  He stated, "1 went to college to not have to 
sweep floors and clean toiletsv1. 

g.  Also during this assessment, prominent obsessive- 
compulsive personality characteristics were noted.  These 
characteristics included preoccupation with rules, details, and 
organization to the point where sight of the overall goal were 
lost; and written notes on most conversations.  Although 
Petitioner did not specifically mention suicidal ideation, he 
indicated that he would do I1whatever it takes" in order to Itget 
my  life back in orderft. He was found fit but was considered 
psychologically unsuitable for continued military service due to 
a severe obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, with 
prominent narcissistic traits.  He was strongly recommended for 
administrative separation.  Furthermore, although Petitioner did 
not seriously intend to kill himself, he was deemed to be 
sufficiently intelligent and calculating to attempt self-harm in 
a non-lethal manner if he felt his goals were not being met. 

h.  On 16 August 1995, in a letter to the commanding officer, 

the attending psychologist indicated that, ltexpeditious 
administrative separation is strongly recommended at the 
convenience of the government by reason of severe personality 
disorder.  Retention of active duty carries with it the omni- 
present risk of suicide." 

i. 
pend 
rsona 

Subsequently, on 22 August 1995, Petitioner was notified 
ing separation action by reason of the diagnosed 
lity disorder.  At this same time he waived his rights to 

* 
consult with legal counsel and to submit a rebuttal to the 
separation action.  The discharge authority directed that he be 
issued an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of 
personality disorder.  On 25 September 1995 he was so separated 
and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

j. The Board initially considered and denied Petitioner's 

request for change in his reenlistment code and reason for 
separation. 

k.  On 20 August 1999, Petitioner received a psychological 

evaluation for prospective employment with the Alabama Game and 
Fish Commission.  During this evaluation, he was found to have 
Igno indications whatsoever of emotional instabilitygg. Further, 
the conclusions were that he was functioning within the high 
average to superior range of psychometric intelligence, and that 
there were no negative personality or character traits. 

1. In November 2001, Petitioner requested that the Board 

reconsider his case.  In support of that request, he submitted 
the 1999 psychological assessment.  He also submitted evidence 
that since his separation, he has held responsible civilian 
positions and has been active in the Alabama Air National Guard 
(ANG) and Civil Air Patrol (CAP).  He has submitted statements in 
support of his application from the executive officer of his ANG 
unit, an assistant professor  (Air Force major) with the local 
reserve officer training corps (ROTC) detachment, and an Air 
Force major general.  Petitioner and the ROTC professor state 
that unless the reenlistment and separation codes are changed, he 
cannot participate in the ROTC program or be commissioned.  The 
professor also states that Petitioner has been "totally 
forthcominggg about his discharge, and wants to have the "black 
marktt removed from his record. 

m.  The Board received an advisory opinion (AO) from the 
Mental Health Services, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CAI 
which recommends that Petitioner's request be denied because the 
record supports the in-service diagnosis of personality disorder. 
The A0 notes, in part, as follows: 

From review of the servicememberts record in 1995, it is 
clear that while in the Navy, he exhibited inflexible, 
rigid, and grandiose personality characteristics 
(essentially a mixed obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic 
personality disorder) that ultimately made him unsuitable 
for further military service. 

Because the recent psychological evaluation in 1999 by Dr. 
Goff did not find Petitioner to have a personality disorder 
... Petitioner seems to argue that the personality diagnosis 
given to him while in the Navy was incorrect.  Personality 
disorders, though defined by DSM-IV as "enduring subjective 
experiences and behavior that deviate from cultural 
standards, are rigidly pervasive, have an onset in 
adolescence or early adulthood, are stable through time, and 
lead to unhappiness and impairment," have been found to be 
mutable in longitudinal studies. 

However, in 1995, while in the navy, Petitioner's records do 
support the in-service diagnosis of personality disorder for 
the reasons noted above. 

n. On 5 April 2002, Mr.  Kevin Lapour, the clinical 

psychologist who conducted both psychological assessments in 
1995, provided a statement that reads, in part, as follows: 

.... Petitioner was engaging and personable, and presented 
his case to me in a logical, straightforward fashion.  His 
demeanor raised the question in my mind whether the 
diagnosis given in 1995 is accurate or justified for 
Petitioner in 2002. 

o.  An individual may be discharged for best interest of the 

service (BIOTS), or Secretarial authority, in accordance with the 
plenary authority of the Secretary of the Navy if discharge is 
appropriate but none of the established reasons for separation 
fit the circumstances of the case.  A  servicemember separated for 
this reason receives an honorable or general discharge, or an 
entry level separation.  Such an individual may receive either an 
RE-1 or an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the 
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable 
action. 

After reviewing the relevant evidence of record, the Board 
believes that Petitioner's enlisted thinking that he would become 
a flight officer, either from bad advice or recruiter 
misrepresentation.  When he was disapproved for AOCS, he had 
problems dealing with this rejection.  His two psychological 
assessments, the last of which resulted in separation, resulted 
from his inability to handle the reality that he was not going to 
become a flight officer.  Additionally, the Board concluded that 
there was no evidence to support the statement 

I1omni-present risk of  suicide^,  since there was no prior history 
of suicidal ideation, gestures, or attempts.  The Board also 
notes separation was based on the psychologistls perception that 
the Petitioner was a Itdanger to himself or othersw.  Although it 
is clear that Petitioner wanted to be separated and would have 
done Itwhatever it takesn in order to Itget my  life back in order," 
the Board does not believe these comments indicate any sort of 
suicidal ideation. 

The 20 August 1999 psychological evaluation clearly indicates 
that there were "no indications whatsoever for any sort of 
emotional instabilityM, Petitioner was llfunctioning within the 
high average to superior range of psychometric intelligencett and 
that there were "no indications for negative personality or 
character traits".  Additionally, the clinical psychologist who 
diagnosed Petitioner with a personality disorder now questions 
his own diagnosis.  Accordingly, the Board questions the validity 
of this original diagnosis. 

The Board is also aware that since his discharge, Petitioner has 
been a responsible member of society, holding down several 
civilian positions.  His service with the CAP and ANG indicates 
that he may well be capable of performing useful service on 
active duty. 

Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, the Board has an 
abiding doubt as to whether Petitioner was properly diagnosed 
with a personality disorder in 1995.  Additionally, it appears 
that Air Force authorities are aware that he had problems while 
in the Navy, but nevertheless want him in the ROTC program. 
Accordingly, the Board believes that no useful purpose is served 
by the current reason for separation and reenlistment code, and 
they should be changed consistent with the desires of the 
Petitioner and the Air Force. 

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an 
injustice warranting the following corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that 
On 25 September 1995 he was discharged by reason of Itsecretarial 
authorityn with an RE-1  reenlistment code vice by reason of 
"personality disorderI1 with an RE-4  reenlistment code.  This 
should include the issuance of a new DD Form 214. 

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 
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record. 

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 

Acting Recorder 

5.  The foregoing is submitted for your review and action. 

Reviewed and approved:f 

MAY  8 2002 

el  (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)