DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                    CRS
                                                    Docket No: 3417-02
                                                    27 February 2003


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
       (b)  BUPERSINST 1900.8

End:  (1)      DD Form 149 w/attachments
       (2)  Case Summary
       (3)  Subject’s naval record

1.    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former
enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing the
RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 18 February 1997.

2.    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Grover, and Frankfurt,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 19 February
2003 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. Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in timely
manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations and review the application on its merits.

    c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 19 December 1996.

    d. On 7 February 1997 a psychiatric evaluation found that Petitioner had
an avoidant personality disorder. Further, the diagnosis found that he was
a danger to himself and to others.

    e. On 18 February 1997 he received an entry level separation by reason
of a diagnosed personality disorder. At that time, he was assigned a
reenlistment code of RE—4.






              f. With his application, Petitioner submits a psychiatric
           evaluation which essentially states that he does not have a
           personality disorder. He also submitted a letter of support from
           a friend who had written a Member of Congress. In that letter,
           the friend stated that Petitioner “intentionally misled Navy
           medical personnel about the state of his health in order to
           extricate himself from what he felt was an untenable position.”

              g. In an advisory opinion, the Specialty Advisor to the
           Surgeon General for Psychiatry concludes that the evidence of
           record fails to support the diagnosis of a personality disorder.
           Accordingly, the Specialty Advisor recommends that the
           reenlistment code be changed.

              h. Reference (b) states that an individual may be separated
           by reason of best interest of the service if separation is
           appropriate but no other reason set forth in the reference
           covers the situation at hand. Individuals separated for this
           reason may receive a reenlistment code of RE—Ri, RE—i, or RE—4.

              i. Applicable directives authorize the assignment of an RE-4
           reenlistment code to an individual who has failed to complete
           recruit training.

           CONCLUSION:

           Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
           Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial
           relief. Given that the advisory opinion states on the issue that
           Petitioner does not have a personality disorder, the Board
           concludes that the reason f or discharge is inappropriate and
           should be changed to “best interest of the service”, a non—
           stigmatizing reason for separation which is assigned when no
           other reason is appropriate. Accordingly, the Board believes the
           nondescript reason of best interest of the service is now
           appropriate.

           Although Petitioner requests that his reenlistment code be
           changed and the advisory opinion so recommends, the Board does
           not agree. In this regard, the Board initially notes that an
           RE—4 reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance for
           individuals who fail to complete recruit training, or for those
           discharged by reason of best interest of the service. Further,
           the letter to the congressman indicates that Petitioner lied to
           medical personnel in order to be discharged. It is well settled
           in the law that an individual who procures his discharge by
           fraud should not benefit when that fraud is discovered.
           Therefore, the Board concludes that there is no error or
           injustice in his reenlistment code.







                                      2








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 he received an
entry level separation by reason of best interest of the service on 18
February 1997.

    b. That no further relief be granted.

    c. 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.

    d. 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      ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Recorder    Acting Recorder

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 Regulations, 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.




                                             W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                             Executive Director














                                      3