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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01255

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990930, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the government and reenlistment code change to RE-1.  The applicant requested 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 000529.  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: UNCHARACTERIZED/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620225.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. My separation was improper because along with my DD-214, there are no records that substantiate the reasons for my separation from the United States Navy, with a separation code of RE4.

The following locations and individuals have been contacted and none of these organizations or individuals has any records that would justify or substantiate this type of discharge.  Attachment found in case older.

2.  The Statement that I enlisted erroneously is false.  My records of enlistment show that I did make a statement in writing at the MEPS Head Quarters in Seattle Washington to Dr Palmer concerning the fact that I did see a child psychologist at the age of 13 to 14 years of age due to family issues.  Dr. Palmer stated in my entry medical record "Psychological consult.  No problems identified." Dated Jan 30 1997.

The attached letter from Dr. P_ W. H_, MD was an evaluation I personally requested.  I did this to show my recruiter that I was not, or was I ever treated for mental illness.  I was simply seeking answers to questions that created conflict with the personal relationships between myself and my friends and family.
As far as the medication I took, Dr P_ H_ states 'in his evaluation that it certainly was not a high enough dosage to have been a preventative dosage should I have had a mood instability.

PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION (BRIEF)
(applicant) 

IDENTIFYING DATA:  (Applicant) is a 19 year-old single Caucasian male, date of birth 08/04/77 who makes his home with his parents at (address deleted). I saw (applicant) for an assessment on 08/16/96 as a referral from his PCP, Dr. S_, to gain a second opinion regarding his diagnosis and prognosis.

PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: (Applicant) gives a history of having been treated by Dr. B_ V_, a Renton, Washington, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist at age 13 or 14 for a mood disorder arising from the breakup of an adolescent romance.  Apparently, Dr. V_ saw him as depressed and started him on Prozac, the Prozac was not tolerated and he apparently placed him on Tegretol starting it at up to 600 mg daily and kept him on Tegretol therapy until the present time.  However, the dose has been weaned down over the past year or more to 200-250 mg daily.  (Applicant) has been seen every six months for the past year or more for a brief med check by Dr. V_., (Applicant) has been physically healthy all his life, never hospitalized psychiatrically or otherwise, he has taken no other psycho-active medications.  He reports that his mood has been good since the initial episode when he was 13 or 14 and has gone on with his life, completed high school and also have been in an accelerated college program earning 60 quarter credit hours.  He relates that he has been socially active and has now decided to enter the military, following a family tradition.  His objective is to enlist in the Air Force and train in airplane mechanics and maintenance.  During the interview which lasted 80 minutes and was accompanied by his father, (applicant) presented as a young man who looks his age and is in good physical health and condition, he was well groomed and attired.  He was alert, cooperative, earnest and showed bright intelligence.  His mood was even and stable, while his affect was bright and earnest.  There were no signs of a thought disorder and I could detect no psychiatric diagnosis or disturbance of any kind.

I recommended that (applicant) contact Dr. V_ about his desire to go off Tegretol and get his input.  It would seem that the very low dose Tegretol that he has been taking over the past few years, has certainly not been a preventative should he have a mood instability such as a Bipolar disorder.  Since he has never shown mania and finds the medication of little use presently, it would seem that tapering off or stopping the medicine completely would be a reasonable procedure.  Again after my one visit with (applicant) and his father, I could detect no signs of mental illness.

3. After being discharged from the Navy I immediately returned to School and work.  I have received my associate of Arts degree and have transferred to Central Washington University where I am pursuing my degree in Geographical Information Systems.  I am also actively participating in the Air Force R.O.T.C. program.  I have qualified for pilot and aircraft navigation training with above average scores.  In the spring of 2000 I will test to fly heavy lift aircraft.  For this reason I am applying for a reentry code change and discharge upgrade.  If the Air Force R.O.T.C. program does not become a reality for me, a clean slate of my military records will be valuable in applying for government positions in the field of geography.

Documentation

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

Character reference dated October 9, 1999
Letter to applicant from Contact Representative, Retired Records Section dated July 7, 1999
Memorandum from AFROTC Detachment 895/CC dated October 22, 1999
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Thirty-six pages from applicant's service records
Character reference from Senior Pastor dated September 15, 1999
Character reference dated September 12, 1999
Character reference dated September 23, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)		970131 - 970303	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970304		Date of Discharge:  970320

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  00  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  58

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA			Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

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 3620225.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970310:	Applicant diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, severe, EPTE.  The psychologist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  Applicant was considered self-destructive and a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

970314:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of 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 as evidenced by a personality disorder.

970314:  	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.

970317:	Commanding officer recommended discharge uncharacterized by reason of 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. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970320 uncharacterized 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).  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).

The applicant’s first issue states: “My separation was improper because along with my DD-214, there are no records that substantiate the reasons for my separation from the United States Navy, with a separation code of RE4.”  The NDRB found the applicant was diagnosed by a medical officer with a personality disorder on 970310 and properly discharged from the Naval Service.  The applicant’s issue with the RE code assigned is not a decisional issue for the NDRB.  Relief not warranted.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Pers-282, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. 

In response to the applicant’s second issue: “The Statement that I enlisted erroneously is false.  My records of enlistment show that I did make a statement in writing at the MEPS Head Quarters in Seattle Washington to Dr Palmer concerning the fact that I did see a child psychologist at the age of 13 to 14 years of age due to family issues.  Dr. Palmer stated in my entry medical record "Psychological consult.  No problems identified." Dated Jan 30 1997.”  The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and medical record and found that with the Medical evaluation on 970310 the applicant’s discharge: Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation) and reason Personality Disorder, was proper and equitable.  Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that a properly diagnosed personality disorder was the reason the applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 1996 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER.

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