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

 
 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00656

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030306.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE-ENTER NAVY.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident with no prior history of psych. disorders.

2.  The discharge is improper because the doctor prescribed haldol and Aptiva

3.  The doctor continued to interrogate me while under these psych meds.  (I had never taken these meds before)

4.  Dr. A_ K_ grossly misdiagnosed me.  There is and was nothing wrong with me”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Letter from Applicant, dated October 22, 2003
Employee reference, dated October 22, 2003
Police record check, dated September 10, 2003
State of Texas academic achievement record
Psychiatric evaluation, dated November 18, 2002 (2)
Letter from Applicant, dated February 18, 2003
Letter from AGAPE “R” Christian Counseling Ministries, dated December 2, 2002
Letter from Applicant’s grandparents, dated November 30, 2002
Letter to United States House of Representatives from Applicant, dated August 26, 2002
Letter to United States House of Representative from Applicant’s parents, dated August 26, 2002, unsigned
Letter to United States House of Representative from Applicant’s father, dated August 26, 2002
Privacy release authorization, dated August 26, 2002
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Medication use, side effects for Lorazepam
Aftercare plan for Applicant, dated August 8, 2002
Medical record page
Commanding Officer’s recommendation, dated July 31, 2002
Psychiatric evaluation, dated July 25, 2002 (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	010731 - 020714	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020715		Date of Discharge:  020809

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  37

Highest Rate:  SA

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

*  No Marks Found

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020725:	Medical evaluation: Diagnoses: Axis I: Psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.  Rule out bipolar disorder, manic with psychotic features versus schizophreniform disorder versus brief psychotic disorder.  Axis II: Deferred.  Axis III: None.  Axis IV: Severity of psychosocial stressors is moderate; military recruit training.  Axis V: Global assessment of functioning upon admission: 10-15.  Highest global assessment of functioning in the past year is unknown.

020730:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by psychotic disorder.

020730:	Applicant advised of 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.

020731:	Commanding Officer directed discharge with an uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020809 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (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).

Issues 1 and 4. The Applicant was diagnosed with "Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” by competent medical authority at the Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL, and was recommended for expeditious administrative separation from the Navy.  Thus, the Board finds that the Reason for Discharge reflects the applicant's mental health status at the time of her discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance.  The contention that the personality disorder never existed or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to revise official records that were accurate at the time of issuance.  Relief denied.

Issues 2 and 3.  The attending physician’s report, dated 20020725, from Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL, stated that the Applicant voluntarily signed herself into the hospital and “gave verbal informed consent to begin treatment with an antipsychotic medication”.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s contention that she could not answer the doctor’s questions thoroughly due to the medications that she had received.  The physician’s report stated that before the medications were administered the Applicant’s “insight was poor, although she did state that she felt confused.  Her judgment was poor, and impulse control was poor”.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  At this time the Applicant has not submitted sufficient documentation for the board to consider.

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 at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 13 Jun 01 until 21 Aug 02, 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