DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

JRE
Docket No: 7974-97
17 March 1999

This is in reference to your request for further consideration of 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 11 February 1999. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board.
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board

,October 1993. It was not persuaded that the medical

In this regard, it noted that on or about 1 June 1992, while undergoing your

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. In this regard, the Board adhered to its original findings and conclusions as
reflected in the enclosed letter dated 21  
care you received while serving in the Navy was inadequate, or that you were unfit for duty
because of a mental disorder, residuals of a laceration, or any other condition at the time of
your discharge.
pre-separation physical examination, you stated you were in good health. You did not
complain of any symptoms of significant physical or mental disorders at that time, and none
were noted by the examining physician, who found you physically qualified for separation.
The Board was unable to conclude that the diagnosis of a personality disorder, which led to
your discharge, was incorrect, or that your discharge was otherwise erroneous or unjust. It
noted that the determination of your entitlement to benefits administered by the Department
of Veterans Affairs is not within the purview of the Board, and that questions concerning the
computation of your separation pay entitlement should be directed to the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service.

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.

The names and votes of the

members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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.
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
Consequently, when applying for a

It is regretted that the circumstances

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION  
WASHINGTON. D.C. 

OFTHE NAVY
OF NAVAL RECORD8
20270-8100

EBM
Docket No: 14095-9
21 October 1993

2

Your allegations of error and injustice were

application for correction of your
provisions of title 10, United States

Dear-
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19
October 1993.
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 January 1989
for-'four-years-after‘more than 12 years of prior honorable service.
Your-recordreflects:.that.during.~your  last 
for. about four months 
you 
suicide.
prevented from doing so by a shipmate. After an evaluation, the
diagnosis was
personality."
from your 
medication.
being suicidal or homicidal.
officer when available, and continue bed rest and medication.

W8suicidal  ideation/gestures, and immature
At that time it-was.recommended that you be removed

were.-.seenby.-.medical  authorities because you had attempted

At  that time you tried to cut your wrist, but were.

duties-:witbthe-mess  deck master-at-arms, and given

At a follow-up evaluation the next day you denied

enlistmentlyoti,_served
27:May-1990

However,-_on  

You were to be referred to 

without-.incident;-- 

a.medical

_I 

.I_.. 

-/. 

~ 

._._.~__.  

.. 

_~_.

., 

_.___~ 

_... 

-,

-s%zT&lr-

-_-. 

_.--

On 5 June 1990 you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation.
traits",
provisional diagnosis was "passive-dependent personality 
However, the final diagnosis
with a history of suicide gestures.
;;z sexual
was 
problems, and immature or mixed personality disorder."
psychiatrist indicated that you were responsible for your behavior
and could be trusted as an outpatient.

lgdysthymic  disorder with a multiplicity of neurotic 

The

----The-enf‘sttperforman-ce  

-evaluatiun-for?ha-p-o

dlAprI*-7LV9Dt-6-~---_-~.--

At that time the

31 March 1991 shows that you received an adverse mark of 2.6 in the
category of rating knowledge/performance.
commanding officer (CO), in his comments, stated that you were a
He further stated
capable worker with a sincere desire to learn.
that although you would like to become a proficient Gas Turbine
Systems Electrician (GSE) you did not appear to have the ability to
The CO stated that
learn advanced electronic technical procedures.
you needed to find a rating in which you could apply your energy
You were not recommended for advancement, but you
and dedication.
were recommended for retention in another rating.
A psychiatric evaluation of 14 June 1990 shows that you were seen
on a daily basis in the outpatient mental health department of the
The report indicated no
Naval Hospital at Naples, Italy.
improvement in your attitude and you were considered to be
manageable without any anti-depressant medications, but you were
deemed unfit for service at sea or on shore.
medical evacuation for further evaluation.
In November or December 1991 your master record was reviewed by a
Petty Officer Quality Control (POQC) Review Board and your
On 9
performance was considered to be below acceptable standards.
1991.~0~ received a letter of substandard service.
December 
A page
13 entry of 8 January 1992 shows that you signed the entry in which
you acknowledged -that you had been counseled concerning your
You also
deficiencies and the corrective action to be taken.
acknowledged that you were placed on the POQC and were restricted
from'reenlisting or extending your enlistment without specific
prior approval of the-Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP).
The enlisted performance evaluation for the period 1 April 1991 to
31 March 1992 shows that you received a marginal mark of 3.0 in the
category of rate knowledge/performance.
stated that you were an extremely dedicated petty officer, and were
willing to accept assigned tasks.
that your technical and managerial expertise in your rating
continued to be below that expected of a second class petty

The CO also stated, however,

The CO, in his comments,

You were prepared for

2

-_-

_- 

-._

---~

.__A 

aria in 

_~
0rdW for 

__.- 

_.. 

youobe

ov~~~~a~~~~-th~~~-.-att~ib~t~~,

The CO also noted that you had completed a highly

officer.
successful tour as the mess deck's master-at-arms and received
praise during a successful supply material assessment.
Additionally, the CO stated that you were a loyal and well-liked
member of the USS VANDERGRIFT who was willing to do what it took to
support the command, that you had the ability to complete assigned
tasks on time, and always maintained a neat and professional
However, the CO stated that your shortcomings tended
appearance.
tb 
recommended for retention and advancement you had to demonstrate
significant improvement in your technical and supervisory skills.
You were not recommended for advancement or retention in the Naval
service.
On 6 April 1992 you were referred to medical authorities after you
became upset and angry and threatened to kill yourself because of
After an evaluation the diagnosis
problems with junior personnel.
personality.1'  It
was "questionable suicidal ideation and immature 
On 16
was recommended that you attend stress management classes.
April 1992 you were referred to the mental health department at the
The
Naval Hospital, Long Beach for a fitness for duty evaluation.
.‘I You were found to be fit for
diagnosis was *'personality disorder  
duty, but it was noted that your underlying personality interfered
with your ability to manage stressors.
could benefit from participation in a ten week anger management
training.
On 20 April 1992 you were notified that you were being considered
for an administrative separation by reason of convenience of the
You were
government due to the diagnosed personality disorder.
advised of your procedural rights and you requested only to obtain
You
copies of the documents supporting the basis for separation.
On 6 May 1992 the CO notified the
did not object to the discharge.
CNP that you would be separated with an honorable discharge due to
In his comments the CO stated, in part, as
a personality disorder.
follows:

You were found to be responsible for your behavior.

It was stated that you

His first reported attempt

"(Petitioner) has exhibited a repeated
suicidal tendency when in a stressful
environment such as an overseas
deployment.
of suicide was in 1987, over marital
problems.
Then again in May 1990, he
attempted suicide while deployed in the
On 14 June 1990 he was
Arabian Gulf.
evaluated as unfit for service at sea.
He was then reevaluated on 26 June 1990

3

.-. 

.-

-
 

Then on 16 April 1992 he

as fit for duty after attending a stress
coping group at the Naval Hospital in
Oakland.
((1 will kill myself"
expressed in anger,
over an incident with co-workers on the
He was subsequently evaluated fit
ship.
for duty and not presenting a present risk
m--h.a_rm-h”ilh^
evaluation 
llpoor judgment
and impulse control by 
evaluation list his current pressures as
"wife's medical condition, crew members
taunting him about previous suicide
attempt, and being unable to see his
daughter."

stat;?s he uses 

HOWeVeiiii--6iiiii$

history.11

The last

_~__l_-.-_.

~~~ 

.-.

---_

On that same date

"Other Physical/Mental

- Personality Disorder."

You were assigned an RE-4

such as your prior honorable

A page 13 entry of 3 June 1992 shows that you were not eligible for
reenlistment due to the personality disorder.
you were honorably discharged by reason of 
Conditions 
Reenlistment Code.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors,
service and the period of satisfactory service during your last
enlistment.
However, the Board concluded that the reason for
discharge should not be changed and you should not be reinstated in
the Navy.
In this regard, the Board was aware that it is well
documented in the record that you were diagnosed by competent
medical authorities as having a personality disorder.
The Board
noted that authorities attempted on numerous occasions to assist
you during your periods of distress,
but you continued to show
signs of stress.
The Board also noted the comments by the CO in
which he stated that you attempted suicide in 1987 and again in
1990, and on 16 April 1992 you stated that you were going to kill
yourself over an incident with co-workers on the ship.
Further,
your contention that the recommendations of medical personnel were
ignored and not carried out, has no merit.
In this regard, the
Board noted that you received medical attention on numerous
occasions and the CO stated in his comments that you were
reevaluated on 26 June 1990 as fit for duty after attending a
stress coping group at the Naval Hospital in Oakland.
Additionally, the Board denied your request to change the marks in
the category  of rate knowledge/performance to 
"Not Observed". In
this regard, the Board noted that your CO did observe your
performance and commented on what he had observed at that time.
The Board also noted that the CO assigned you the marks that he
determined to be appropriate based on your overall performance at
that time.

4

The names and votes

Accordingly, your application has been denied.
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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
tihen
 
-of--regularity~-a~a-c~e~-toaI-afflc~~~  
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.

-rec.oras.

.__-

-.. 

-~.

c6.~~~quen
tly;_.-

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

copy to:
DAV

5