Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00779-03
Original file (00779-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

                                                                                           JRE
                                                                                          Docket No. 00779-03
                                                                                          25 August 2003




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 21 August 2003. Your allegations of error and 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.
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 were discharged from the Navy on 5 December 2000 by reason of a personality disorder. The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contentions to the effect that you were “framed” by NCIS agents, that you were given a diagnosis of a personality disorder to preclude an insanity defense to charges that had been initiated against you, that the diagnosis which resulted in your discharge was the product of unlawful command influence, and that a psychologist placed false and unsubstantiated information in reports of psychological
 evaluation to support a diagnosis that would warrant your discharge.
The Board was not persuaded that there were any material deficiencies in your discharge processing. It noted that specific counseling was not required in your case, given the psychologist’s assessment of your potential for harming others. It also noted that as you made an agreement to be discharged in return for being granted favorable discharge characterization, your separation would have been constructively valid even if it were to be determined that counseling requirements had not been satisfied or properly waived. Your good post-service record, as well as your demonstrated ability to perform military duty in an excellent manner, as reflected in the proficiency and conduct marks you received during your enlistment in the Marine Corps, and the favorable marks and comments in most of the evaluation reports you received while in the Navy, were considered insufficient to demonstrate that you do not suffer from a personality disorder. The recent determination of a civilian psychologist that “there is no evidence of a mental disorder” was not considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in connection with your discharge from the Navy. In this regard, it noted that there is no indication in the psychologist’s report that he reviewed the reports of psychological evaluation in which you were given a diagnosis of a personality disorder, or that he had detailed knowledge of their contents. In addition, he indicated that his opinion was based in part on information you provided. The Board concluded that your self-reports of the circumstances leading up to your discharge were undoubtedly colored by your desire to present yourself in a favorable light, and to establish that you did not have a personality disorder.
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.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04852-06

    Original file (04852-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2007. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 25 October 1999. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08538-06

    Original file (08538-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 underwent psychological evaluation on 20 May 2000. On 12 February 2004,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08518-04

    Original file (08518-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2005. This man shows evidence of an antisocial personality disorder of moderate severity which existed prior to enlistment, and certainly makes him unsuitable for continued Naval Service. Minimum average marks of 3.0 in conduct and 2.7 in overall traits were required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of your separation.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08655-00

    Original file (08655-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petitioner was impatient with Med Hold and the Mental Health Department, stating once more that he felt the Navy was the cause of his psychological problems. Diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (resolved); Marital Problem; Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, with Antisocial and Narcissistic traits psychiatrically fit for full duty and accountable/responsible for his actions. In the petitioner ’s letter requesting a change in status of his discharge, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09769-05

    Original file (09769-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.You enlisted in the Navy on 28 September 2005 at age 19. Based on your actions while in recruit training, the history you provided, and the psychological testing, you were diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial traits.Consequently you were processed for an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08335-01

    Original file (08335-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, changes in his reason for separation and reenlistment code. In support of that request, he submitted the 1999 psychological assessment. However, in 1995, while in the navy, Petitioner's records do support the in-service diagnosis of personality disorder for the reasons noted above.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02336-00

    Original file (02336-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist on 11 March 1997, and reported that you felt the Paxil was helping and that you were feeling much better. The increase was based on a report of treatment dated 30 November 1998, and a VA rating examination conducted on 4 May 1999, which indicated your depressive symptoms had increased in severity The Board noted that in order to qualify for disability separation or retirement from the Armed Forces, a service member must be found unfit to perform the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07101-00

    Original file (07101-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type, was thus established at this evaluation. The petitioner's psychological evaluations consistently reported that no delusions were present. However, this does not SUBJ: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF mean the condition was also present at the time they were diagnosed solely as Personality Disorder.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09632-06

    Original file (09632-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2007. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02561-98

    Original file (02561-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for post traumatic stress disorder in 1997, effective from 23 August 1994, was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval record. prior to your discharge were related to a personality disorder, which is a condition not covered by the military disability evaluation system, rather than a physical disability. It appears likely that the diagnosis made with all information would be PTSD and...