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


      CRS
                                                         Docket No: 8518-04
                                                         24 October 2005



















      This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
      record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States
      Code section 1552.

      A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
      sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5
      October 2005. 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, your naval record and
      applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

      After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
      the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
      establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

      The Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 7 December
      1979 and reported to active duty on the same date. The record
      reflects that you received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s). The
      offenses included assault consummated by a battery, possession and
      use of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Subsequently, a
      psychological evaluation, conducted on 7 November 1980, diagnosed you
      with a personality disorder and found that you would pose a
      continuing danger to yourself and others if retained. In this regard,
      the psychologist stated, in part, as follows:

            This 19-year-old, single, Caucasian male, with 11 months active
            duty was admitted to the Medical Holding Company on October 31,
            1980 with a diagnosis of Immature Personality. . . after
            threatening to jump off ship. Physical examination upon
            admission was within normal limits. The patient was directed to
            report to the Psychiatry Clinic on the morning of 3 November
            1980. He failed to show up for that appointment and
            subsequently missed 2 more appointments before finally
            reporting to











      the clinic on 7 November 1980.

      When interviewed on 7 November 1980 he was quite belligerent and
      expressed a complete lack of respect for authority and lack of
      concern for the consequences of his behavior. He was fully oriented,
      alert, and in no emotional distress. Thought processes were logical
      and coherent without evidence of hallucinations or delusional
      thinking. There was no evidence of depression or suicidal ideations.
      Affect was appropriate. Content of thought centered on his dislike of
      shipboard life and resentment toward authority.

      This man shows evidence of an antisocial personality disorder of
      moderate severity which existed prior to enlistment, and certainly
      makes him unsuitable for continued Naval Service. This condition has
      manifested itself through repeated arrests, truancy, running away
      from home, expulsions from school, and drug abuse as an adolescent.
      He has continued to have conflicts with authority since his
      enlistment resulting in two NJP’s during the past 11 months. The
      patient is not likely to benefit from further psychiatric evaluation
      or treatment. The prognosis for his rendering honorable naval service
      is nil. Administrative separation is strongly recommended as soon as
      possible. It is not recommended that he be returned to his ship.

Thereafter, on 9 January 1981 you received a general discharge by reason of
unsuitability due to the diagnosed personality disorder. At that time, you
were assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-4.

Character of service is based, in part, on one’s conduct and overall traits
averages, both of which are computed from marks assigned during periodic
evaluations. Your conduct and overall trait averages were 2.1 and 2.6,
respectively. Minimum average marks of 3.0 in conduct and 2.7 in overall
traits were required for a fully honorable characterization of service at
the time of your separation.

On 12 July 2004 the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) reviewed an earlier
decision of your local Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Regional
Office, and granted service connection based on the diagnoses of two DVA
examiners who concluded that you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Additionally, the BVA concluded that “it is likely as not” that you
have PTSD, based on your allegation that were the victim of homosexual
rape. In its decisional document, the BVA noted that one of the examiners
had dismissed the diagnosis of personality disorder.




                                      2



In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the contention that
the BVA called into question the diagnosis of a personality disorder.
However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the two disciplinary
actions, and since your conduct and overall trait averages were
insufficiently high to warrant a fully honorable discharge. In this regard,
the Board noted the action of the BVA and its rationale. However, there is
no evidence of sexual trauma in your service record to support this
determination, and you did not allege any such trauma when examined by the
psychologist. Further, you should be aware that DVA makes its decisions
based on different criteria than the Navy and such standards are not
binding on the Board.

An RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance and often
assigned to individuals separated due to diagnosed personality disorders,
especially if they are deemed to constitute a threat to themselves or to
others. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in
your reenlistment code.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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 and material evidence or other matter not
previously 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.

                                 Sincerely,



                                  W.    DEAN PFEIFJ
                                  Executive Direc












                                      3