Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00156
Original file (ND00-00156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00156

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991112, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to something acceptable for reentry. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 00727. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board did note an administrative error in that the reason for discharge was incorrectly listed on the applicant’s DD 214 as Personality Disorder. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED but the reason should be corrected to say ERRONEOUS ENTRY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280)..

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 2, Department, component and Branch, should read: "NAVY-USNR" vice "NAVY-USN", Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: “MILPERSMAN 1910-130” vice “3620200”, Block 26, Separation Code, should read: “JFC” vice “JFX”, and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: “Erroneous Enlistment” vice “Personality Disorder.” The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. My discharge was inequitable due to the fact that I do not believe that my psychological assessment was fair and just. I do not believe that I was given a complete and professional assessment. The assessment and judgement regarding my mental state happened so rapidly that I do not feel that I was given the opportunity to respond or explain further. I believe the officer handling my case was quick to judge my behavior and emotional state. My emotional state and behavior were not typical of my normal behavior due to extenuating circumstances. I was having a very difficult time being away from home due to many complex reasons.

2. I am submitting this form with the hope that I may clear my military record so that I can persue a military career. At the time of my enlistment I was involved in a unhealthy relationship with a girl that I thought was the one for me. The day before I left for camp she told me she was going back to her ex-husband. I was completely devastated. It had been the first serious relationship that I had been involved in. I devouted entirely too much of myself to her. In turn, losing her brought agony and pain. Given the circumstances my performance was not effected. My service record will reflect much involvement within my unit. I completed and complied with everything required of me and more. When I approached the chaplain with my situation he referred me to the recruit evaluation unit. From that point I was interviewed by a doctor who wanted to label the characteristics of my situation as a personality disorder. The next thing I knew I was in the separations unit. Now that I look back I believe that I could of worked though that difficult time. The Navy was entirely too quick to discharge me.

 Documentation
Only the service/medical record was reviewed, as the applicant did not provide any additional documentation to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     971024 - 980102  ELS
        
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980217               Date of Discharge: 980403

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 08
         Inactive: 00 00 10

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 77

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNCHARACTERIZED/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980226:  Commenced 48 months active duty.

 980326:  Mental Health Evaluation: This 18 year old, single Caucasian male Seaman Recruit (SR) was referred to REU on March 25, 1998 by chaplain. Seaman Recruit arrived at RTC on February 26, 1998 and was referred because Seaman Recruit was having problems adjusting to RTC.
         Psychiatric History: SR reported being prescribed Zoloft and Prozac for depression in the past two years, which he took for a total of 9 months. He also reported recurrent bouts of depression with accompanying symptoms which were incapacitating.
         Mental Status Exam: An alert, oriented recruit. Mood was dysphoric with flat affect. Eye contact was poor. Recent and remote memories were intact. Speech was clear and coherent. Verbalizations reflected average intellectual functioning. There was no evidence of a formal thought disorder or an organic brain syndrome. SR's judgment and insight were fair. SR denied current suicidal or homicidal ideation or intent. SR's present risk for danger to self or others is low.
 Since arriving on active duty, Seaman Recruit has experienced loss of appetite, disturbed sleep, confusion, anxiety, and poor motivation. Command evaluation documented fair to good performance but some adjustment difficulties. Assessment confirms the following disqualifying psychiatric diagnosis:
AXIS I - Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, 296.32.EPTE
AXIS II - No Diagnosis on AXIS II, V71.09
NRAM-SAC code: 191 Gey-Psych (Pre-Service)
Plan/Recommendation: (1) Entry level separation is effected because of the disqualifying psychiatric condition.
(2) Seaman Recruit encouraged to seek treatment for condition upon separation. Seaman Recruit was educated regarding this condition and given an after care referral. He is suitable to report to Separations Division.

980330:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a depressive disorder.
980330:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
980331:  CO, RTC, directed applicant’s discharge with an entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction into the naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a depressive disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980403 with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a depressive disorder. (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D), but that the DD214 incorrectly listed the reason for discharge as Personality Disorder.

The applicant states in issue 1 that his “ discharge was inequitable due to the fact that I do not believe that my psychological assessment was fair and just.” T he Board found that the applicant was diagnosed with a “Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent” which existed prior to enlistment (EPTE). In addition, the applicant admitted to using Zoloft and Prozac for 2 years prior to his enlistment. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged for erroneous enlistment based on the fact that he would not have been enlisted in the Navy if this psychiatric history had been known.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that the “Navy was entirely too quick to discharge me.” The applicant would not have been able to enlist in the Navy if the Navy had known about his recurrent major depressive disorder and his use of Prozac and Zoloft for the 2 years prior to his enlistment.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.


B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00359

    Original file (ND02-00359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00359 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00162

    Original file (ND03-00162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00162 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. “Respectfully request my discharge be changed from Uncharacterized (entry level separation) RE-4 to allow me to re-enter the U.S. military. 010427: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00066

    Original file (ND99-00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    code on my discharge papers changed to an R.E.-3 so that I may go back in Please consider me for re-enlistment into the U.S. Navy by changing the R.E. 971217: Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes evaluation (podiatry): Diagnosis - Pes Planus with symptoms, entry level medical separation for EPTE condition. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge and the reason for discharge was proper and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00386

    Original file (ND00-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00386 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and remove the reason for the discharge. Characterization of service as General is not warranted as the applicant’s active service was only 16 days. The applicant was properly processed for discharge as erroneous enlistment, however, an administrative error on the DD214 states “personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00420

    Original file (ND00-00420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00420 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980929 with an Uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00758

    Original file (ND02-00758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00758 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020506, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to Best Interest of Service (Secretarial Authority) and that a recommendation be made to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to change the reenlistment code to RE-1. 000811: Commanding Officer, RTC Great Lakes, directed Applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00016

    Original file (ND01-00016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant should consult a recruiter to determine requirements for reenlistment. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00204

    Original file (ND01-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Notification Letter to Applicant dtd Oct 6, 1999 Recruit Mental Health Substance Use Evaluation dtd Sep 23, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990824 Date of Discharge: 991013 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00303

    Original file (ND01-00303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s issue states: “My discharge was due to me being a scared 19 yr. old. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment. PART IV...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00324

    Original file (ND01-00324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991230 with an Uncharacterized service for Defective enlistment and induction due to Erroneous enlistment (A). The Board determined, the medical exam was performed by competent medical authority and the applicant was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...