Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600148
Original file (ND0600148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00148

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051101. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060 908 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant ’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder .


PART I -

APPLICANT ’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant ’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter:
“ Dear NDRB,

The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable and the reenlistment code be changed to RE-1 with corresponding Separation Program Number/designator. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree. The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the Navy acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting.
ISSUES

1 . Family/Personal problems, youth and immaturity impaired my ability to serve .

Documentation enclosed:  Evidence 3: Psychological Evaluation dated April 28, 2005
          Page 5, Paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
          Evidence 2: Letter: Dept. of the Navy, President, Physical Evaluation Board, LCPL M_ D. W_ - Notification of Decision dated Oct. 20, 2004.
M_ D_ W_ and I met while we were both stationed at Pensacola Naval Base where we developed a very close relationship. One month after we met she said she was pregnant. I told her I really did not want to have a child at this time but she begged me to marry her. We argued, she told me later she had an abortion. This was a lie, she was never pregnant. I did not find this out until a year after we were married. Two and half months before my discharge she said she took drugs and did not want to go back to base because she was afraid of what the Marine Corp. would do to her. She thought she was doing drugs because a voice was telling her she was doing drugs. She tested negative for any drugs. At the Base in Pensacola no one would lesson to her problems, which made them even worse. I went UA to take care of her and took her to a recruiter in Jacksonville so they would take her to Jacksonville Naval Hospital. I then turned myself in to the recruiter. I tried to go through the right channels to get help for her but know one would listen to either one of us. I know now that it was the wrong thing to do but at the time I thought it was my only option. Being 20 and immature, I was thinking with my emotions and not with my brain. M_ kept begging me to get out of the military to take care of her and be with her. I told her I did not want to, but she said she would hurt herself if I didn’t. During this whole ordeal I was trying to tell the people at the NATTC base hospital in Pensacola that I was having a problem dealing with my fiancés’ problems and they basically told me that I was making it all up. They sent me back to my barracks. The next day I went to the main Military Hospital in Pensacola and was admitted to ER because I was having panic attacks. M_ was diagnosed as being Bi-polar and schizophrenic and is now 100% service connected disabled. I was impulsive, young and thought I was doing the right thing by taking care of my fiancé. My commander asked me if I wanted to stay or leave. I told him I really didn’t want to leave the Navy but didn’t know of any other way to help my fiancé. He then offered me a discharge. I took it without really understanding its impact. M_ and I were married on September 16, 2002. M_ left Oct 14 th 2004 to be with her family in Florida. We divorced on August 10, 2005. I know now that I made a mistake. I didn’t have the skills to take care of her and must now leave it up to her and her doctors.

 2 . Discharge and RE code change .

Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 3: Psychological Evaluation dated April 28, 2005
          Page 5 Paragraph 5 sentence 3 & 4, Page 6 paragraph 1 sentence 4 and 5.
         Evidence 26 NAVPERS 1070/6 13 Paragraph 1
The reason I would like an upgrade from (general under honorable conditions) to (honorable) and the Reenlistment code upgraded to (RE- 1 ) with corresponding Separation Program Number/Designator is that I do not want a suspicious general discharge and an (RE-4) to be on my record for the rest of my life. I feel it is to high a price to pay for trying to take care of a person I loved and for being misdiagnosis. Today I would never handle that same situation in the same way. I would do everything I could do by going through the proper chain of command. Also Evidence 26: NAVPERS 1070/6 13 Administrative remarks Aug. 30, 2002 Signed by N.L. H_, PN1 (SW/AW), USN Page 1 Paragraph 1 states: “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REENLISTMENT and assigned a restrictive reenlistment code of (RE-4) REASON: PERSONALITY DISORDER.” It has been found in Evidence 3: Psychological Evaluation April 28, 2005 Page 4 under DIAGNOSIS and Page 5 Paragraph 3 that I “ did not and do not have a personality disorder ”.
3 . Insufficient testing/counseling to justify diagnoses of severe personality disorder .

 Documentation enclosed:  Evidence 5: SF600 NAVHOSP PENSACOLA FL Sick Call Jul. 24, 2002
          Evidence 6: SF513 Jul. 24, 2002
          Evidence 8: Log # 020809-000 10 Aug. 09, 2002
          Evidence 9: F.C.C. #39 Aug. 09, 2002
          Evidence 13: Log# 020810-00056 Aug. 10, 2002
          Evidence 12: CONSULTATION SHEET Aug. 10, 2002
          Evidence 3: Psychological Evaluation April 28, 2005
          Evidence 1: MILPERSMAN 3620200 Chapter 15 - Disposition of Problem Cases
MILPERSMAN 3620200 states that Personality disorders are not, in and of themselves, cause for processing for separation. The personality disorder must render member incapable of serving adequately. There must be documented interference with performance of duty persisting after the member has been counseled about deficiencies and been afforded an opportunity to overcome them. Administrative counseling must be documented, along with the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200). Processing for separation because of personality disorder under MILPERSMAN 3620200 requires that the personality disorder must be established by either a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist and that the report of that clinician’s evaluation.

I feel that there was insufficient documentation to determine I had a severe personality disorder. I had a very short interview and psychological evaluation. Aug. 09, 2002 was the second time I was seen and from that short interview I was labeled/diagnosed with Axis I: Alcohol Abuse and Axis II: Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Dependent, Borderline and Antisocial Features and at the same time was shown to be competent. See Evidence 19: Recommendation for Expeditious Administrative Separation Dated Aug. 09, 2002 number 1 and 2.
Test Results of Evidence 3: Psychological Evaluation April 28, 2005 Page 4 “Diagnosis” and Page 5 paragraph 3 sentence 7 refutes the Aug. 09, 2002 diagnosis.
 Also, documentation Evidence 12: Consultation Sheet dated 08/10/2002 shows a diagnosis by the Clinical Social Worker as “Borderline Personality Disorder — Axis II/I Adjustment Disorder with anxious mood” and shows the condition of release, as: “Improved”. Given my maturity level now I would not receive this type of diagnosis (Personality Disorder) or discharge.
4 . No record of evaluation
Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 27: Letter from Senator John Ensign July 11, 2005
I tried to obtain my psychological evaluation many times and finally in July of 2005 asked Senator J _ E _ to assist in obtaining the evaluation. My mom K _ S _ received a call July 18, 2005 and July 21 or 22, 2005 from a Master Chief in Millington, TN. He told her that he could not locate the evaluation and that he was told it probably was destroyed.

 5 . My records show I was generally a good service member .

 Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 22: NAVPER 16 10/2 Evaluation Report & Counseling Aug. 13, 2002
Document notes that I met standard for military bearing/character, and personal job
accomplishments/initiative. This was signed dated by me on Aug. 13, 2002
Psychological Evaluation April 28, 2005

 6 . Graduation from Aviation Electrician Technician Class “A” School.
I did not graduate. I was told to pick another class, so I did. I picked Air Traffic Control and was waiting to start the next class.

 7 . Serious threat to the safety and well being of myself, and others.
I was sent back to my barracks each time I was seen in Emergency.
I was on Barracks Support from early June 2002 through Aug. 30, 2002. If I was considered such a serious threat to the safety and well being of myself, and others, why was I left on Barracks Support until my discharge on August 30, 2002?

 8 . Alcohol Assessment .

 Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 19: Letter 6520 Ser 53/286 Recommendation for Expeditious Administrative Separation Number 5 dated Aug. 09, 2002
It was requested that the Command Drug and Alcohol Advisor complete an Alcohol assessment and make the appropriate referral to the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation. This was never done.

 9 . My Record of Unauthorized Absence indicates only minor and isolated offenses .
Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 7: NAVPERS 1070/606 Record of Unauthorized Absence.
          Evidence 17: Letter 1900 REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION Id
I went UA June 17 through June 26, 2002 to take my fiancé to Jacksonville Naval Hospital. There was never any action taken for this offense.

 10 . Character references

Documentation Enclosed:  Evidence 28: Letter - R_ P_ April 17, 2005
          E vidence 29: Letter - D_ G_ February 28, 2005
          Evidence 30: Letter - K_ S_ Aug. 20, 2005

 11 . I have been a good citizen since discharge .

I maintain a job, vote, have taken the responsibility of maintaining my own residence, utilities etc. and have had no altercations with law enforcement since my discharge.

Respectfully,
[signed]
M_ A. B_( Applicant ) ”



Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant , was considered:
Chapter 15 - Disposition of Problem Cases MILPERSMAN 3620200
Notification of decision l etter from Department of the Navy, Naval Council of
Personnel Boards, President, Physical Evaluation Board, dtd Oct ober 20, 2004
Psychological Evaluation by Dr. J_ P_, PH.D , Nevada Licensed Psychologist, dtd
A pril 28, 2005 (6 pages)
NAVHOSP PENSACOLA FL, Patient Order List, dtd July 24, 2002
NAVHOSP PENSACOLA FL, SF600 , dtd July 24, 2002
SF513 Consultation Report , dtd July 24, 2002
NAVPERS 1070/606 Record of Unauthorized Absence, dtd June 27, 2002
Emergency Care & Treatment - NH PENSACOLA, FL , dtd August 9, 2002 (2
pages)
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dtd August 9, 2002
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dtd August 10, 2002
Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, dtd August 10, 2002
Consultation Sheet from P_ E_ A_, LCSW, BCD, Capt, MSC, USNR, Clinical
Social Worker, dtd August 10, 2002
Emergency Care & Treatment - NH PENSACOLA FL, dtd August 10, 2002 (2
pages)
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dtd August 16, 2002
Report of Medical Assessment, dtd August 16, 2002 (2 pages)
Fourteen pages from Applicant’s service record
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (3)
Letter from Senator J_ E_ , dtd July 11, 2005
Letter from R_ P_ , dtd April 17, 2005
Letter from D_ G_ , dtd Feb ruary 28, 2005
Character Reference from Applicant ’s mother, dtd August 20, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20010524 - 20011021       COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20011022              Date of Discharge: 20020830

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 09 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 8 day s
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 8                                  AFQT: 62

Highest Rate: AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                            Behavior: 3 .0 ( 1 )                 OTA: 3 .00
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal

* Not Available


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

020617:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 020617.

 020626:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0055 on 020626 ( 9 days)/surrendered.
020724:  NATTC Mental Health. Applicant referred for anger, stress, frustration. Admin: Dropped from school. Legal: Awaiting mast for UA X 2. Denies SI thoughts – has verbalized wanting to “hurt someone if he can’t leave”. A : (1) Anger management problem. (2) Increased stress. (3) Awaiting legal results. P: (1) Refer to Mental Health Department.

 020724:  Naval Hospital Pensacola Medical Evaluation by C_ M_, Mental Health Technician and D_ D_, L T , MSC, USNR, Staff Psychologist: Applicant reported to Mental Health in an agitated state. Applicant calmed down during interview and stated he could maintain his anger. Applicant offered anger/stress management class. Applicant declined both classes. Provisional diagnosis: Increased anger and anxiety.
020809:  Medical evaluation by Commander W_ H_, Clinical Psychologist, Naval Hospital Pensacola. Applicant diagnosed with AXIS I: Alcohol abuse. AXIS II: Personality disorder not otherwise specified with dependent, borderline and antisocial features. The psychiatrist recommended expeditious administrative separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. Applicant may become a threat to harm self or others if retained in the US Navy. The requirement for NAVPERS 1070/613 counseling and warning does not apply.

020810:  Medical Evaluation by P_ E. A_, CAPT, MSC, USNR, Clinical Social
 W orker. Applicant referred to psychiatrist due to suicidal ideation. States that the (Applicant) does not feel safe by himself and has homicidal ideations. Diagnoses: Borderline personality disorder. AXIS II:/I: Adjustment disorder with anxious mood. Plan: Contract to safety. Will come to hospital if thoughts return. Given other resources to help with adjustments. Has Mental Health appointment 12Aug at 0800. Notify command.


020813 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to severe personality disorder.

020813 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation .
0208XX :  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center directed Applicant ’s discharge with the type warranted by service record by reason of convenience of the government for a diagnosed severe personality disorder. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ Airman Apprentice B_( Applicant ) was diagnosed by medical authorities as having a severe personality disorder which is virtually untreatable in a military facility. He is considered a serious threat to the safety and well-being of himself or others which renders him incompatible with military service. His potential for future useful naval service is considered inadequate. Medical authorities strongly recommend that he be administratively separated immediately. In my opinion, he has no potential for further useful naval service; therefore, I have directed that he be separated from the naval service with the type of discharge warranted by service record by reason of Convenience of the Government. ”
020816:  Applicant found fit for separation.

 020819 :  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center to Officer-In- Charge Personnel Support Detachment Pensacola, directed the Applicant 's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20020830 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). 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 (B and C).

Issue: 3, 4, 7 and 8. The Applicant states “the presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the Navy acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting”. The Applicant claims insufficient testing/counseling to justify diagnoses of severe personality disorder. The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the fact that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 20020809. The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable. Relief denied.

Issue: 1. The Applicant claims youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve. The Applicant states “I was impulsive, young and thought I was doing the right thing by taking care of my fiancé. I know now that I made a mistake”. The statement contained in the application that the Applicant’s admission was due to his youth and immaturity was found to be insufficient justification to warrant a change in the reason for discharge. Relief denied.

Issue: 2. The Applicant states “The reason I would like an upgrade from (general under honorable conditions) to (honorable) and the Reenlistment code upgraded to (RE-1) with corresponding Separation Program Number/Designator is that I do not want a suspicious general discharge and an (RE-4) to be on my record for the rest of my life”. Since the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) has no jurisdiction over reenlistment codes, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

Issue: 5, 6 and 9. The Applicant claims his records show he was generally a good service member. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The NDRB noted that the Applicant was absent without leave from 20020617 to 20020626. Although his misconduct was not adjudicated, he violated UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence). His misconduct provides the basis for determining the character of his service and reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Additionally, the NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or the implied incorrect medical diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to upgrade the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge. Relief is not warranted.

Issue: 10 and 11. The Applicant states “I maintain a job, vote, have taken the responsibility of maintaining my own residence, utilities etc… and have had no altercations with law enforcement since my discharge”. There is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct, which precipitated the discharge. Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s)

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .






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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501450

    Original file (ND0501450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Captain F_ notes the fact of my sister’s addiction in her report later, but it appears as though in the discussion of cocaine that was the only thing stated in her report that is in fact true. She was diagnosed with Axis I: Alcohol Dependence, Polysubstance Dependence, Bulimia Nervosa, Occupational Problem, R/O Adjustment Disorder with depressed and Angry Mood versus Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent; Axis II: Borderline Personality Disorder; and Axis III: Self Inflicted lacerations and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01370

    Original file (ND03-01370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01370 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030814. F_ if there was anything the Navy could do to help me, but she told me there was nothing. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501171

    Original file (ND0501171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Medical Discharge.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. AXIS I: Major depression, recurrent 296.30 EPTE Relationship Problem NOS, V62.81 Bereavement, V62.82 AXIS II: 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder AXIS III: Has fibroid problems AXIS V: Current Global Assessment of Functioning:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00669

    Original file (MD02-00669.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The statements all recommend that I be separated due to the stress in my life and recommended an honorable discharge.There is no basis in my record for the "General under honorable" characterization or the narrative reason of "Personality Disorder". The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501476

    Original file (ND0501476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 with a DD Form 214 that listed the separation authority as MILPERSMAN 1910-102 and the narrative reason for separation as personality disorder. On 20010926, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600001

    Original file (ND0600001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00001 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd April 5, 2005 E-mail from NAS PENSACOLA, dtd March 29, 2005 Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record Four hundred and seventy-five pages from Applicant’s medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500967

    Original file (ND0500967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The DD-2 14 stated that I received a General- Under Honorable discharge, because of a personality disorder . Furthermore, medical authorities determined that Seaman Recruit P_(Applicant) may become a threat to harm himself or others if retained.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20011228 by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00824

    Original file (ND02-00824.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00824 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020520, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is therefore denied and, as the Applicant's Commanding Officer did in fact order an uncharacterized discharge to be issued, the Board will direct the character of discharge on the Applicant's DD Form 214 to be corrected from general (under honorable conditions) to uncharacterized. The Applicant is advised that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500940

    Original file (ND0500940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer’s comments: “Airman M_ (Applicant) was diagnosed by medical authorities as having a borderline personality disorder which is virtually untreatable in a military facility. In my opinion, she has no potential for future active service; therefore, I have directed that she be discharged from the naval service with the type of discharge warranted by the service record by reason of Convenience of the Government.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600226

    Original file (MD0600226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. The patient denied symptoms of psychosis, including auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, ideas of reference, or an active delusional system. The Applicant provided one...