Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11176-06
Original file (11176-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                    TRG
         Docket No:11176-06
         27 March 2008







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- memb er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2008. 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 20 November 2002 at age 20. Apparently you began having difficulties and were referred for a psychiatric evaluation. At that time, you reported a history of behavioral problems while in school and taking medication for depression. After review, a clinical psychologist diagnosed you with a borderline personality disorder and recommended an entry level separation. On 13 December 2002 you were notified of separation processing by reason of erroneous enlistment. You did not object to separation and waived your procedural rights. After review the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and you were so separated on 20 December 2002. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.




You contend in your application that your difficulties in recruit training occurred because you were denied medication for your hypothyroidism which caused side effects. Therefore, you believe that you have been improperly diagnosed with a personality disorder. In support of your contention you have submitted a report from a clinical psychologist. He found that you had a history of major depressive disorder which was in remission and a probable history of mood disorder due to hypothyroidism. He believed that the borderline personality disorder diagnosis was of questionable validity. The psychologist believed that a more appropriate diagnosis would have been a mood disorder due to hypothyroidism. You have also submitted character references that attest to the fact that you have been steadily employed with a good work record.
The Board was aware that symptoms of a personality disorder may only become manifest when an individual is under stress and you may not have been under stress when your psychologist reached his diagnosis. The Board concluded that whichever diagnosis is correct, it is clear that you were unsuitable for service and your enlistment was erroneous. Regulations require an entry level separation when the separation processing is begun within 180 days of enlistment as it was in your case. The Board concluded that you were properly separated by reason of erroneous enlistment and no change in the characterization of service and reason for discharge is warranted.
Regulations allow f or the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated by reason of erroneous enlistment and such a code is normally assigned when an individual fails to complete recruit training.
Accordingly, 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501203

    Original file (ND0501203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01203 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050713. I feel that “no waiver for psych “ had a direct impact on the reason for my Discharge as Erroneous Enlistment. SR is suitable to report to Separations Division.021213: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a borderline personality disorder.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07064-00

    Original file (07064-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 May 2001. 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. 2. Review of available Navy medical records revealed: a.

  • 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00729

    Original file (ND03-00729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “On behalf of the above referenced applicant, and in accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the following informal comments; and/or issue(s). Evaluation done by Dr. N_ who recommended pt be administratively separated from the Navy. It is possible that due to her adjustment disorder or depressive disorder NOS triggered by occupational stress, that...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01874

    Original file (PD2012 01874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    She also alleged emotional, physical and sexual abuse,and stalking,prior to entry in the service (age 19) by a boyfriend.The admission mental status exam(MSE) noted depressed mood, normal thought process, and no auditory or visual hallucinations.The discharge diagnoses on Axis I: MDD;Axis II: Cluster B traits (borderline, histrionic, narcissistic and/or antisocial); and, Global Assessment ofFunctioning (GAF) of 65 (some mild symptoms or impairment).At the narrative summary NARSUMexamon 24...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00611

    Original file (PD2011-00611.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA C&P examination completed on the same day as the mental health C&P noted the CI was very reluctant to answer questions. The Board agreed that the symptoms reported on the MEB examination were consistent with a §4.130 rating of 70% (occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood) considering the CI’s poor interpersonal functioning and strong history of suicidal ideation. The VA examiner noted a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01064

    Original file (PD-2013-01064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB also recommended discharge under provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code.The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB), which adjudicated “major depressive disorder, severe without psychosis, single episode, social and industrial adaptability impairment mild” as unfitting rated at 30%, with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), withthe hypothyroidismagain adjudicated to be Category II, placing the CI on Temporary Disability Retired List...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00998

    Original file (PD2012 00998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Separation Date: 20031215 The Board also notes that a C&P exam performed 24 months after separation documents that the CI’s mental health diagnosis was changed to Bipolar disorder sometime after her separation from military service while receiving treatment from the VA. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002325

    Original file (20130002325.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 6 August 2003 Report of Mental Status Evaluation memorandum for her commander listed Borderline personality disorder and stated her depressive disorder in full remission "has nearly resolved with treatment and is not a significant factor in recommendation for separation." Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her. As confirmed by the OTSG advisory opinion, there is insufficient medical evidence to support an unfitting PTSD finding at the time of her discharge.