DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 09774-59
28 June 2010

 

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

  

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD (eee ~—

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

Encl: {1) DD Form 149 with 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 that his reason for discharge (personality
disorder) and RE-3G reenlistment code be changed.

2. The Board, consisting of vs . wee: Mr. ape and

Mr. (iam veviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 22 June 2010 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner,
it is in the interest of justice to waive the statue of
limitations and review the application on its merits.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of
active duty on 28 October 1996 and served without incident until
27 May 2005, when he was the subject of a mental health
evaluation after being verbally aggressive in his workcenter. He
was seen for anger management issues. The evaluation recommended
an expeditious administrative separation due to a personality
disorder that existed prior to his enlistment. The report
further stated, in part, that Petitioner manifested a disorder of
character, behavior and adaptability that was of such severity as
to preclude adequate military service. Found to be a risk for
suicide or homicide and because of his maladaptive responses to
routine stressors, he was an ongoing risk of danger to himself
and others. On 25 July 2005, he self-referred for a second
opinion and was diagnosed with a narcissistic personality
disorder. The evaluation found him fit for full duty, and
recommended that separation was not warranted at that time and

that he should be given the opportunity to change his behavior
patterns.

d. On 31 October 2005, the Chief, Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery, notified the Navy Personnel Command that Petitioner did
not meet the established physical standards for the nuclear field
duty due to a personality disorder. As a result of this action,
he was forced to convert to a different rating. Ten months
later, on 10 May 2006, his commanding officer issued him a
counseling/warning concerning his diagnosed personality disorder,
but deemed him psychiatrically fit for full duty.

e, On 24 July 2006, his request for conversion to a
different rating was disapproved and it was recommended that he
be administratively separated from the Navy. On 31 August 2006,
the Navy Personnel Command directed that he be processed for
separation due toa personality disorder. Stating, in part, that
when a Sailor is disqualified from the nuclear field, he will be
force converted or directed to be processed for administrative
separation.

f. On 5 September 2006, he was notified of proposed action
for an administrative separation for the convenience of the
government due to the diagnosed 2005 personality disorder. He
waived his rights to consult counsel and to have his case heard
by an administrative discharge board (ADB). However, he did
submit a statement in rebuttal of the separation based on a non-
valid psychiatric report, stating, in part, that he had proven
himself to be a capable follower, leader, had performed the tasks
asked of him with no problems, and had been trying to fight the
diagnosis of a personality disorder for over 15 months knowing
that it would cause problems when he was discharged.

g. Petitioner's commanding officer directed separation and
on 13 October 2006 he was honorably discharged, assigned a
separation code of HFX and a reenlistment code of RE-3G. The
RE-3G reenlistment code and HFX separation code means he had a
condition, not a physical disability (personality disorder). At
that time, his discharge enlisted evaluation recommended him for
advancement and retention with an overall trait average of 3.57.
h. In his application, Petitioner states that the diagnosis
of a personality disorder was in error because the second opinion
found him fit for full duty. He submitted a psychiatric
evaluation from Southwest Counseling Service dated 17 June 2009,
which states, in part, that he is not impaired, his cognitive
functions are intact, and they did mot detect any symptoms of
psychosis,

CONCLUSION:

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

Although Petitioner was diagnosed with a personality disorder,
the record shows that he was counseled and given the opportunity
to correct his behavior patterns. At the time of his
notification cf administrative processing, he had served without
incident for over 14 months since his first mental health
evaluation and attained above average evaluations. The Board
believes that if it were not for the fact that he was forced to
convert to a different rating due to being disqualified from the
nuclear field he would not have been discharged. It appears he
was making positive improvements with his behavior problems, and
may have been able to continue to serve out his obligated
service. Finally, the Board concludes that the DD Form 214
erroneously states that he was discharged due to a personality
disorder and where in fact he was ineligible for retention due to
his forced conversion. Consequently, the narrative reason for
separation on the DD Form 214 should be changed to “non-
retention”. Additionally, his separation code should be changed
from HFX to JGH and his reenlistment code from RE-3G to RE-3M,
meaning he was not recommended for continued active duty in his
current rating.

 

 

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 13 October 2006, he was discharged by reason of
“non-retention” vice “personality disorder”, assigned a
separation coded of JGH vice HFX, and reenlistment code be
changed to RE-3M vice RE-3G, all now of record.

b. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.
c. That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be
informed that Petitioner’s application was received on
14 September 2009.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c) 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. Z2SALMAN ree J Bret reg GEORGE
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 Regulation, 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.