DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

-_

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON, D.C. 203704100

ELP
Docket No. 7073-99
30 October 2000

From:
To:

Subj:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

RECORD OF

Ref:

(a) 10 U.S.C.1552

Encl:

(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's Naval Record

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a

1.
former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to
this Board requesting, in effect, that her record be corrected
to show a more favorable discharge than the discharge under
other than honorable conditions issued on 29 October 1987.

The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Silberman, and

2.
Newschafer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 25 October 2000 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes,

regulations and policies.

Documentary material

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record

3.
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 to

the Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and
review the application on its merits.

C .
years at age 19.

Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 22 August 1986 for
The record reflects that she completed

four

"A" School, was advanced to  

Radioman Class  
subsequently was assigned to duty in Italy.
June 1987, she was counseled twice for lack of attention to
detail and her substandard personal behavior.

RMSA (E-2), and

During the month of

*_

d.

Petitioner was seen in the psychiatry clinic on 6 July

She denied any delusions or hallucinations and voiced

1987.
dissatisfaction with military life, but did not want to be
The examining
recomended for administrative separation.
psychiatrist noted that psychological testing and the clincial
evaluation were consistent with a borderline personality
disorder, a condition existing prior to service but not
disqualifying for military service.
She was returned to full
duty and administrative separation was recommended if she could
not adjust to military service.
management program was also recommended.

Enrollment in a stress

e.

During the month of July 1987, Petitioner was counseled
unsatisfactory performance, and

on four occasions for tardiness,
her odd behavior on 17 and 30 July 1987.

f.

On 11 August 1987 Petitioner was upset and seen again

by the psychiatry clinic because she was facing nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for being late for work several times, and
wanted to be recommended for administrative separation as soon
as possible.
psychiatrist opined that she was not motivated for psychiatric
Administrative
treatment or for continued military service.
separation was strongly recommended.

Her diagnosis remained unchanged.

The examining

Q*

On 13 August 1987 Petitioner received nonjudicial

punishment (NJP), apparently for six instances of failure to
report to her appointed place of duty.
consisted of forfeitures of $329.99 per month for two months,
14 days of restriction, and a suspended reduction in rate to
RMSR (E-l).
vacated and ordered executed on 17 August 1987.

However, the suspended reduction in rate was

Punishment imposed

h.

The record reflects that through the remainder of

August and September 1987 she received three more  
instances of breaking restriction, three instances of absence
without authority, and consuming alcohol while in a restricted
status.
regarding her numerous failures to report to work on time and
the demonstrated pattern of misconduct evidenced by her repeated

During this period, she was formally counseled

NJPs for five

2

minor violations.
corrective action could result in administrative separation
under other than honorable conditions.

She was warned that failure to take

i.

On 9 September 1987, Petitioner was notified that she

She was advised of her

Thereafter,
coxrananding officer (CO) recommended Petitioner's discharge.

was being considered for discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct and convenience of the government due to the
diagnosed personality disorder.
procedural rights, declined to consult with legal counsel, and
waived her right to be represented by counsel and to present her
case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
the 
In his recommendation, the CO noted that she needed constant
supervision and was unable to learn from her errors.
While
assigned to one particular division she began exhibiting more
severe behavioral problems, frequent absences, followed by
crying spells at work.
On 12 October 1987, Commander, Naval
Military Personnel Command directed discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct.

Petitioner was so discharged on 29 October 1987.

j.

The Navy Discharge Review Board denied Petitioner's

This Board
However,

request for upgrade of her discharge on 1 May 1995.
also denied a request for upgrade on 28 October 1997.
she now provides evidence that five months after her discharge
she was diagnosed by civilian doctors as a paranoid schizo-
phrenic and has been hospitalized on several occasions because
of her psychosis.
hallucinations to Navy doctors, she did not know that what she
was'seeing was not real.
She now realizes that her behavior in
the Navy was disruptive, but claims there were many times when
she did not know whether she was sitting, standing, walking, or
talking.
because she thought people were after her and trying to kill
her.

She asserts that she was misdiagnosed by the Navy.

She states she knew she was sick and wanted to go home

Petitioner states that when she denied having

k.

An advisory opinion from the Department of Psychiatry,
(l),

Naval Medical Center (NMC),
states that three different psychiatric evaluations performed
prior to Petitioner's discharge, found no evidence of an
underlying psychotic process given a lack of psychotic behavior,
denial or hallucinations or delusions by the Petitioner.

Portsmouth, VA, at enclosure  

Mental
status examinations were also without evidence of psychotic

3

process and the psychological testing supported a diagnosis of
borderline personality disorder.

*_

1.

On 12 July 2000, a staff member of the Board contacted

one of the case reviewers at NMC Portsmouth since the advisory
opinion failed to answer the question of whether Petitioner's
schizophrenia, diagnosed five months after her discharge, was a
contributing factor in her misconduct and poor performance while
whether it was sufficiently mitigat-
on active duty and, if so,
ing to warrant recharacterizing her discharge.
reviewer remained steadfast in that there was no evidence of
However, the case
psychotic behavior while on active duty.
reviewer noted that since Petitioner was diagnosed schizophrenic
shortly after her discharge,
disorder may have been present but were so subtle they were not
The case reviewer further opined that
noticed in the testing.
although such manifestations may have contributed to her
misconduct, they did not excuse her of responsibility for her
actions.

manifestations of a psychotic

The case

CONCLUSION:

In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner was

It appears to the Board that the odd behavior for

NJPs, may have occurred during the
While the Board concurs with

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic five months after she was
discharged.
which she was counseled and her frequent but minor misconduct
for which she received four  
beginning stages of her illness.
the advisory opinion that there was no full-blown psychosis at
a diagnosis of a psychosis so close
the time of her service,
after her discharge cannot be ignored.
that one of Navy psychiatrists who reviewed this case opined
that the early manifestations of a psychotic disorder may have
been present, but were so subtle they were not noticed, and
these manifestations may have contributed to her misconduct.
It therefore appears to the Board that since Petitioner's
condition may have been in its initial stage at the time of her
service and was a contributing factor in her poor performance
and misconduct, the Board believes that such minor misconduct
does not warrant the life-long stigma of a discharge under other
than honorable conditions.
appropriate and just to
general discharge under

recharacterize her discharge to a
honorable conditions.

The Board further notes

The Board concludes that it would

4

RECOMMENDATION:

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show

that she was issued a general discharge by reason of misconduct
due to pattern of misconduct on 29 October 1987 vice under other
than honorable conditions actually issued on that date.

b.

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.

C .

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
references being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

4.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

Acting Recorder

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6

5.
(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),
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

has been approved by the

W. DEAN P
Executive D

5