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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00273

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 981211, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990816.  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’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  “3620200” vice “3620255.”  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  (Equity Issue from American Legion statement) This former member avers that his enlisted performance marking of 2.8 in personal behavior and resulting General discharge is to harsh in light of the fact that he had no derogatory counseling entries, nor civil or military offenses.

2.  (Equity Issue from American Legion statement) As the documentary evidence of record supports, this former member opines that his post-service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board’s clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214.
Letter of Recommendation from the Assistant Principal, “Jersey Village High School,” dated October 21, 1998.
Letter of Recommendation from the Government/Economics teacher, “Jersey Village High School,” dated October 28, 1998.
Letter of Recommendation from a police officer of the Houston, TX Police department, undated.
Completion certificates from the “National Security Academy, dated 980717, 980713, 980720 and 980711.
Letter from applicant responding to NDRB’s request for his medical record, dated April 6, 1999. 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None		
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	910919 – 920406	ELS
					930805 – 940626	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940627		Date of Discharge:  950308

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  62

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.8(1)		Behavior:  2.8(1)		OTA:  2.8

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  0 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200 (administratively corrected).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950222:	Applicant diagnosed by Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital Groton, CT as suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed mood and personality disorder with prominent immature and passive-aggressive features. 
Psychiatrist’s comments (verbatim):  “The patient (applicant) is considered at risk to harm himself and others if retained in the military.  He is clearly unsuitable for all military duties.  His personality disorder is severe and not considered treatable within the military medical system.  While his treatment may be manipulative, his immaturity and impulsivity put him at risk for dangerous acting out.”  
The psychiatrist recommended expeditious administrative separation due to the applicant’s ongoing risk to harm himself or others if retained.

950224:	Applicant disqualified from submarine duty due to personality disorder with prominent immature and passive-aggressive features.

950301:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of Convenience of the Government as evidenced by having been diagnosed as suffering from a severe personality disorder.

950301:  	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.

950314:	Commanding officer recommended discharge General (under honorable conditions) by reason of Convenience of the Government as evidenced by having been diagnosed as suffering a personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the Naval service.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  “On 24 February 1995, RMSA (applicant) was evaluated by the Psychiatry Department, Naval Hospital, Groton, Connecticut, and diagnosed as suffering from a severe personality disorder with destructive behavior.  As indicated by enclosure (4), he is considered at high risk for suicidal behavior.  Based on the foregoing, he is considered unsuitable for military service.” 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950308 General (under honorable conditions) for Convenience of the Government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit.  Whether the performance markings were or were not justified is not an issue upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  Performance evaluation markings are at the discretion of the Commanding officer.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  Relief denied based upon this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board found this issue to be without merit.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E, Part IV).  However, there is no law or regulation which provides that a less than Honorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered.  The applicant provided a letter of recommendation from a former high school Assistant Principal and from a former high school teacher who spoke highly of the applicant’s high school behavior.  Neither mentioned any knowledge of the applicant’s post-service conduct.  The additional supporting documentation did not provide the necessary information to support the applicant’s claim of credible post-service conduct.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment history, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities would provide a basis for clemency consideration based on post-service conduct.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Relief denied, based on this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 23 Jun 96, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS OF PERSONALITY DISORDER.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023