DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

CRS
Docket No:  
28  February  200 2

5703-00

This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.

application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United

21- February 2002.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 
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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery dated 17
November 2000, a copy of which is attached.

Your allegations of error and

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.
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

In this connection, the Board substantially

The Board further noted that an RE-4 reenlistment code is
authorized by regulatory guidance and is often assigned when a
servicemember is separated due to a diagnosed personality
disorder, especially when an individual such as yourself is
deemed to be a threat to himself or others.
concluded that there is no error or injustice in your
reenlistment code.

The Board thus

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

2

National Naval Medical Center

Department 

ofpsychiatry

Outpatient Division

Bethesda,Maryland 20889-5600

17 November 2000

Fro
To:
Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA 92 134-5000

N, Specialty Advisor   for Psychiatry, Chief 

BUMED,

Through: Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, NNMC

RRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

ATAN

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

Advisor for Psychiatry

(b) Board for Correction of Naval Records letter of 10 October 2000 to Specialty

Encl: (1) BCNR File

(2) Service Record
(3) VA records, medical records

1. Per your request for review of the subject’s petition for a correction of her Navy
(l), 
records and in response to reference (b), I have thoroughly reviewed enclosures 
and (3).

(2),

2. Review of available Navy medical records revealed:

Beshore 

PhD, documented work

skills, and trouble adjusting to shipboard life

corn the Mental Health Clinic,
a. SF 5 13, Consultation Sheet, dated 19 September 1997 
Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, was initiated to document a personality disorder manifested
by suicidal ideation,  ‘impaired interpersonal 
and the pressures of sea duty. The report by Dr. Jane E. 
related stress, stress related to an upcoming marriage, and interpersonal conflicts with
roommates that resulted in the patient feeling sad, hopeless, and anxious. The patient
received treatment with sertraline and psychotherapy beginning March 1997 with good
resolution of her depressive symptoms. The service member unexpectedly received orders
which indicated that she and her new husband would be assigned on different deployment
schedules. Receipt of these orders resulted in recurrence of her symptoms and in suicidal
ideation. The report also documents that the patient has struggled with adaptation to the
Navy since entry into the service; has had trouble with the majority of her roommates, and
does not make 
reports that this condition is lifelong, as evidenced by her inability to make 

avoidant personality traits. The patient

friends due to her dependent and 

tiends in

school and by her relying on her family for her  total emotional support.  The patient a!so
reports being afraid of being on a ship with 500 men and working on the flight deck.
b. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 10 March 97, documenting the
service member ’s report of work related stress, stress related to an upcoming marriage,
and interpersonal conflicts with roommates that resulted in her feeling sad, hopeless. and
anxious.
c. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 15 April 97, documenting the
service member’s report of significant improvement in her symptoms 
after treatment for
live weeks with sertraline.
d. SF 558, Emergency Room report dated 24 July 97 documenting the service member ’s
suicidal ideation that was the result of the service member unexpectedly receiving orders
that indicated that she and her new husband would be assigned on different deployment
schedules.
e. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 30 July 97, Mental Health
Department, Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, documenting on Axis I: Adjustment Disorder
with Depressed Mood, Dysthymia, and on Axis II: Dependent and 

Avoidant Traits

3. Review of the service record revealed:

entered the service on 

18 August 94 in Portland, Oregon. She

a. AT
completed basic training at Great Lakes, Illinois on 12 May 1995, and finished Aviation
Maintenance  “A” training in September 95. This was followed by assignment to VAQ
129, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, where she served as a KA-6B System
Organizational Maintenance Technician.
b. 
f
ATAN in September 96.
c. There were no awards or letters listed in the service record and no evidence of military
offenses or civilian convictions.
d. Letter dated 17 
Not Otherwise Specified with Dependent and 

AT-er ormance at VAQ 129 was sufficient to warrant promotion to

Ott 97 of Honorable administrative discharge for Personality Disorder

Avoidant Traits.

4. Review of the VA records revealed:

a. Rating decision effective 18 October 97, listing a jurisdiction of 30% for Generalized
Anxiety Disorder. Reevaluation on 23 February 2000 recommended decrease in the
jurisdiction to 10% because the condition noted on 18 October 97 had improved to
become Depressive Disorder NOS and Anxiety Disorder NOS. Disability of 30% was
continued because the 23 February 2000 reevaluation was a single evaluation and was
therefore insufficient to establish sustained improvement. On both of the VA exams
diagnosis on Axis II was deferred. No evidence for or against the previous diagnosis of
Avoidant Traits was
Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Dependent and 
presented.

5. Discussion:

stressor of potential separation from

a.mas evaluated by her flight surgeon and by mental health. She was
originally found to have symptoms primarily of depression and to a lesser extent of
anxiety, neither of which were sufficient to warrant diagnoses of mental illness which
rendered the service member disabled or unfit for full duty. These symptoms are
consistent with the finding of personality disorder, and were treated successfully with
sertraline. However, when faced with the additional 
her spouse, who was her primary emotional and social support, the patient became
suicidal. This level of dysfunction under stress is also consistent with the diagnosis of
personality disorder. There is no evidence of a mental illness present at the time of
separation that rendered the service member disabled or unlit for 
increased risk of suicide in persons with personality disorder, the lifelong nature of
personality disorders, making it very likely that the maladaptive behavior would recur, and
the reduced capacity of persons with a personality disorder to adapt to the stresses of
military life, the Navy elected to administratively separate her.
b. There is no documentation in the patient’s medical record of treatment in a mental
health facility during the period of active duty that would support the diagnosis of
Generalized Anxiety Disorder given by the  VA.
c. There is no documentation of treatment at a VA facility for a major Axis I psychiatric
disorder that would have rendered the service member disabled or unfit for full duty.
d. There is no documentation by the VA of evidence to refute the diagnosis of Personality
Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Dependent and 

ml1 duty, but, given the

Avoidant Traits.

6. Opinion and Recommendations: There is no evidence in the information provided to
support amending the diagnosis of Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with
Avoidant Traits to a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, or any
Dependent and 
other psychiatric condition which is unfitting for military service. There is no reason to
amend the Administrative Separation from of Personality Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified, with Dependent and 
original correspondence 

Avoidant Traits to “medical discharge” as requested in the

from the service member.