DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FORCORRECTION

 

OFNAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TRG
Docket No: 7691-00
21 September 2001

Dear Mr.

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 18 September 2001.
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, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
The
Board also considered the advisory opinion from a Navy
psychiatrist dated 10 June 2001,

Your allegations of error and

a copy of which is enclosed.

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 was unable to obtain your service record and conducted
its review based on the decisional document prepared by the Naval
Discharge Review Board (NDRB) and your medical record.

You enlisted in the Navy on 17 June 1992 at age 18.
served without incident for almost 22 months.
you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation because of your
increasing risk-taking behavior.
states, in part, as follows:

The subsequent evaluation

You then
On 4 April 1994

. 

He experienced these thoughts

. He reported intrusive thoughts of killing himself

. 
over the past few weeks.
only during activities such as driving around curves.
The patient also noted that he had recently become more
reckless, driving his car around curves at high speed
in a potentially self-injurious way, although he denied
any conscious intent to harm himself.
leave, he asked his parents to drive him to the
hospital because he was afraid he might harm himself if
He was scheduled
these reckless behaviors continued.

While at home on

to report to his first duty station, the USS GEORGE
WASHINGTON 

(CVN-73), the day of admission. . . .

You were diagnosed with an unspecified personality disorder with
passive-aggressive, dependent and immature traits.
administrative separation was recommended because the
psychiatrist believed that you were a continuing risk to harm
yourself or others.

Expeditious

Based on the diagnosed personality disorder, you were processed
In connection with this
for an administrative discharge.
processing, you elected to waive your procedural rights and
requested discharge.
directed a general discharge and you were so discharged on 4 May
1994.
and were assigned an RE-3G reenlistment code.

At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment

Subsequently, the discharge authority

On 5 October 2000 the NDRB directed that the general discharge be
recharacterized to an honorable discharge, which was the type of
discharge warranted by your service record.

In support of your request for a change in the reenlistment code,
you state that you were young and immature and found the nuclear
power program very stressful.
and desire to again serve in the military.
application, you have submitted several character references
which attest to the fact that you are a good citizen and
You have also submitted a psychiatric evaluation which
employee.
concludes that you do not have a personality disorder and states,
in part, as follows:

You believe that you have matured

In support of your

. During stressful times in particular, he is prone

. 
to be somewhat self-critical, uncertain, and
indecisive. 
system of social supports with a reasonably low stress
environment is a favorable prognostic sign for future
adjustment. 

. The combination of (a) highly developed

. . . 

. . 

. 

. 

.

(His) clinical profile is entirely within normal limits
and reveals no elevations that should be considered to
indicate the presence of clinical psychopathology.
(He) appeared to relate to this examiner in an honest
and forthright manner.
He appears to be a committed
husband and employee, attends church regularly, and had
no history of problems in the military prior to
hospitalization.

He reports his experience in the Navy was generally a
positive one.
stressors at home (breakup with girlfriend and
homesickness) and in the field in the military

It appears that a combination of

general
(nuclear

2

technology) contributed to the symptoms displayed prior
The "personality disorder" diagnosis
to his discharge.
given him in April 1994 did not appear to have been an
accurate reflection of this individual's symptom
Further, with the benefit of hindsight one
picture.
can utilize in the nearly six years since discharge,
there is no significant evidence for the pervasive
pattern of thinking and behavior necessary to support
such a diagnosis. . . . .

In order to resolve the conflicting psychiatric evaluations, the
Board obtained an advisory opinion from a Navy psychiatrist which
states, in part, as follows:

. 

. 

. Although the record doesn't indicate any history

. 
of prior emotional difficulties, a clear picture is
painted of a young man who didn't want to be in the
Navy and would do whatever he needed to do to get out.

. 

. 

. In support of his request to the BCNR he provided

. 
letters testifying to his maturity and growth. A
psychological assessment also revealed no diagnosis.
Interestingly, it did reveal a possible tendency to not
In a very well
deal well with stressful situations.
written letter he describes how he has matured and his
regrets for his behavior while on active duty.

. 

. It is my opinion that (he) has probably grown

. 
substantially since his discharge and this is evidenced
by his ability to reflect in a mature way on his
actions when he was younger.

Unfortunately, it is well know that personality
It is possible
traits tend to be stable over time.
that if he were to be on active duty during a time of
emotional strain, he may react in a similar way.
His desire to repay the government is admirable, and
I do not
there are many way that he could do this.
think I can support his request for a change in the
reenlistment code.

. . . .

The Board is aware that a personality disorder may become
Therefore, the
manifest when an individual is under stress.
Board believed that you have not conclusively established that
you do not have a personality disorder and substantially concurs
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3G or an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a
Since you have the least
diagnosed personality disorder.
restrictive reenlistment code authorized by regulations, the
Board concluded that a change in the reenlistment code was not

3

warranted.
Accordingly;your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The names and

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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

10 JUN 01
Victor Stiebel, CDR, MC, USNR
Board for the Correction of Naval Records

MEMORANDUM
Date:
From 
To:
Subj:
FORM
Ref:
Encl: 

:

Fife

BCNR 
Medical Record
Civilian Psychiatric Record

(ij
Ii?{ Service Record
(4)
Per your verbal request and in accordance with ref (a), I have reviewed

+lCO

ORDS 
AY 00

leted

8

&closures (1) through (4).
2.
Review of service record indicates an uneventful enlistment. He corn
schools successfully and advanced on schedule. He was admitted to NNM
Bethesda on the day he first reported to his first duty station.
Review of the medical record is noteworthy for very few entries. His first real
3.
contact with medical was when he was admitted to NNMC Bethesda. Although the
record doesn ’t indicate any history of prior emotional difficulties, a clear picture is
painted of a young man who didn ’t want to be in the Navy and would do whatever
he needed to do to get out.
4.
Review of the BCNR record shows that this is his first appeal to the Board.
He feels that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable and his re-enlistment
provrdes several letters in support of his request. His request
code changed. He 
for an upgrade in discharge status to honorable has already been granted.
maturity and growth. A psychological assesment also revealed no diagnosis.
Interestingly, 
It did reveal a possible tendency to not deal well with stressful
situations.
regrets for his behavior while on active duty.
5.
his discharge and this is e
actions when he was younger.
time.
react in a similar way.
strain, he ma
x
discharge.
is desire to 
ways that he could do this.
enlistment code.

has probably grown substantially since
ility to reflect in a mature way on his
Unfortunately, it is well known that personality traits tend to be stable over
It is possible that if he were to be on active duty during a time of emotional
the government is admirable, and there are many
not think I can support his request for a change in re-

In support of his request to the BCNR he provides letters tesifying to his

In a very well wriien letter he describes how he has matured and his

I agree with his being 

grven an honorable

It is my opinion

repa
I

CL

MC 

CDR 
Staff Psychiatrist

USNR-R