Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09299-06
Original file (09299-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                           TRG
                                                                                          Docket No: 9299-06
                                                                                          5 July 2007
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) Case Summary
 (2)      Subjects naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, a former enlistment member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that the record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 24 August 2001 but served on active duty and service on active duty until the completion of his enlistment. He is also requesting that his reenlistment code be changed.
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 June 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.       Although it appears that Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on its merits.
c.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 25 July 2000 at age
 20.      He completed basic training and pn 2 October 2000 he
 reported to the Navy Nuclear Power Training Command. The
performance evaluation for the period 24 March 2001 to 6 July
2001 states, in part, as follows:
Disenrolled during the 11th week of training from the
Nuclear Power Program for failure to meet required
 academic standards in a demanding course
d.       On 27 July 2001, Petitioner reported to the Naval Air Technical Training Center for a course of instruction. Subsequently, he was dropped from the Aviation Electronics Technician Cass “A” school and processed for an administrative separation. The documentation to support separation processing is not filed in the service record. Therefore, the details of the psychiatric evaluation which resulted in separation processing are unknown. The separation physical indicates that he was diagnosed with an obsessive compulsive personality disorder and recommended for separation for that reason. He was issued a general discharge on 24 August 2001 based on the diagnosed personality disorder. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE—4 reenlistment code.
e.       In 2005 a previous Board upgraded Petitioner’s discharge from general to honorable noting the absence of any disciplinary record and his satisfactory individual trait average.
f.       Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3G or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of a diagnosed personality disorder. An RE-4 reenlistment code is normally assigned when an individual is considered to be a risk to harm themselves or others if retained in the Navy.
g.       Petitioner states in his application that he was fit for duty when he enlisted and is fit for duty now. He implies that the erroneous diagnosis resulted in his improper discharge from the Navy.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action. Although there is no evidence in the record providing the details of Petitioner’s psychiatric diagnosis, his separation physical indicates that he was diagnosed with an obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Additionally, he has submitted no evidence to support any of his contentions that he was misdiagnosed and was fit for duty. Since a presumption of regularity applies to all official records, the Board concludes that Petitioner was properly separated based on a diagnosed personality disorder and reinstatement in the Navy is not warranted.
Concerning the reenlistment code issue, it is unclear from the record whether the RE-4 reenlistment code was assigned based on Petitioner’s poor performance or the severity of the diagnosed
2
personality disorder. Further, the originally issued general discharge, which has now been changed, may have had an impact on the assignment of the more restrictive RE-4 reenlistment code. Given the passage of time and the lack of documentation, the Board concludes that a change from the RE-4 reenlistment code to the less restrictive RE-3G reenlistment code is now appropriate. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem which must be resolved but will not preclude consideration for reenlistment.
The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the reenlistment code.
RECO MM ENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 24 August 2001 he was assigned an RE-3G reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
b. That the remainder of his requests be denied.
c.       That this Report of Proceedings be filed in 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. GOLDSM ITH
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09014-03

    Original file (09014-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he received a more favorable reentry code that RE-4.2. The report does not reflect a diagnosis of a personality disorder.CONCLUSION:Although Petitioner’s discharge proceedings cannot be located, it appears that he was discharged on the basis of his obsessive-compulsive personality...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09774-09

    Original file (09774-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reason for discharge (personality disorder) and RE-3G reenlistment code be changed. The evaluation recommended an expeditious administrative separation due to a personality disorder that existed prior to his enlistment. Ten months later, on 10 May 2006, his commanding officer issued him a counseling/warning concerning his diagnosed...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2001-111

    Original file (2001-111.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1995), in determining whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board must consider the reasons for the applicant’s delay and “make a cursory review of the potential merits of the claim.” In this case, he argued, the Board should deny the request for untimeliness because the applicant “has failed to offer substantial evidence that the Coast Guard committed either an error or injustice by not referring his case to a physical evaluation board.” The Chief...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08335-01

    Original file (08335-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. In support of that request, he submitted the 1999 psychological assessment. However, in 1995, while in the navy, Petitioner's records do support the in-service diagnosis of personality disorder for the reasons noted above.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07913 12

    Original file (07913 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his narrative reason for separation “condition, not a disability” and “RE-3G" (condition (not a physical disability) interfering with performance of duty) reentry code be changed. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 30 June 2011, he was discharged by...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-211

    Original file (2009-211.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, a cursory review of the merits of the application indicates that the Coast Guard committed an error by listing JFX (personality disorder) as the separation code, unsuitability as the narrative reason for separation, and RE-4 as the reenlistment code on the applicant’s DD214. It was error for the Coast Guard to describe the applicant’s discharge based on a diagnosis of separation anxiety disorder as a personality disorder. In light of the above findings, the Board finds that it is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07447-97

    Original file (07447-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (b) SECNAVINST 7220.383 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by reinstating him to active duty, changing the reason for discharge or, in the alternative, that the record be corrected to show that the unearned portion of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07687-00

    Original file (07687-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Ms. Moidel and Messrs. Carlsen and Morgan, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 April 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board notes that Petitioner had an excellent career in the Navy for many years, that his decline in performance may have been related...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04437-01

    Original file (04437-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharged on 20 July 1999 by reason of erroneous entry and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. court- Thereafter, the discharge authority You were so The doctor's statement does not challenge Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to an individual separation by reason of a erroneous enlistment. situational anxiety suggests that the unique stresses of military service could easily exacerbate this problem.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03380-01

    Original file (03380-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 29 April 1998. filed enclosure (1) with this 2. f. Applicable directives authorize the assignment of either an RE-3G or RE-4 reenlistment code to an individual discharged due to a physical or mental condition such as a personality disorder. That any material directed to be removed...