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

 ex-MR2, USN
Docket No. ND00-00789

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant designated the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010125.  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)/DISABILITY, PERMANENT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1850-020.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My mental disability was the cause of my getting into trouble.  I was retired with 30% disability because of my problem.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
American Legion's ltr of 6 Dec 2000 with comments/recommendation

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			890531 - 930526	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890511 - 890530	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930527		Date of Discharge:  990401

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  01  05
	Inactive:  02  09  00

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  2 (25 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  99

Highest Rate:  MR2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.8 (2)	Behavior:  3.2 (2)		OTA:  3.4

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Navy "E" Ribbon, GCM, NDSM, SWASM(w/4Stars), SSDR (3), KLM, NUC 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/DISABILITY, PERMANENT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1850-020.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930113:	USS YELLOWSTONE HRE, LT D.G. D_, MC, USN:  Sent by division for evaluation.  Because of disruptive behavior….sent by previous M.O. for eval.  Has explosive episodes at work…….Denies homicidal suicidal….Personality Disorder.  Recommend admin separation.

930527:	Reenlisted for term of 2 years onboard USS YELLOWSTONE.

931014:	USS YELLOWSTONE, Medical Dept:  32 year old to Sick Call with complaint of being assaulted by a fellow shipmate.  Pt states he was hit in the side of the head near left ear with a fist.  Pt complained of headache and pain around left ear.
	A/P:  Blunt trauma to left temple/ear area.  Tylenol 324mg for pain and ice for 20 minutes.  

931202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107:  false official statement to CPO Board and to XO by denying he made physical contact with another crewmember; violation of UCMJ Article 128: assault by pushing another crewmember with his chest.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-4 (suspended for 3 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

940504:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117:  wrongfully use provoking speeches; violation of UCMJ Article 128:  assault.
	Award:  Restriction for 25 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940810:	USS YELLOWSTONE, Medical Dept:  Pt sent by COC for eval prior to extension on board and eval for fit for duty.  No incident of aggression.
	Fit for full duty.

941117:	Applicant issued a Letter of Substandard Service due to performance being below acceptable standards and placed on quality control.  Counseled on corrective actions.  Applicant elected to submit a statement.

941228:	Applicant's statement:  "I believe this report reference (a) (CHNAVPERS ltr Ser 831/1602 of 17 Nov 94), to be unfair and that those actions are unjust.  I shall continue to strive for excellence on duty and beyond that I may support the UCMJ and the constitution of the United States, in letter and intent.  I apologize for having to exercise my rights in such a degrading manner.  I did devote my entire self to the support of my vessel during this time, sacrificing all other immediate goals, as a singular Machinery Repairman for the entire Engineering Department of AD 41, to the extreme extent of counseling myself, as per orders.  I fully believe in equal opportunity, leadership by example and counsel, and the entire United States of America.  To the best of my ability, I will try to improve my performance in order to meet the highest standards of the United States Navy."

950524:	Applicant's request for reenlistment was denied.  While improved performance noted, quality control restrictions remains in place for two years for sustain good performance.

950527:	Extended enlistment for 25 months.

950601:	BUPERS authorized a 27 month extension agreement in lieu of a reenlistment.

950707:	Portsmouth Naval Medical Center Psychiatry Consult:  USS YELLOWSTONE M.O. Referral Note:  "Tangentiality, circumstantiality, & grandiosity".
	Diagnosis:  Occupational Problem, Personality Disorder, NOS with Schizotypal & Narcissistic Features [principal diagnosis].
	EPTS History:  "…long history of "not fitting in" dating back to childhood…Born 3/6 to family disrupted by divorce when Pt was 6…verbally abused by stepfather, who threatened to send him to the "crazy house" and was physically abused by …mother.  During school years, Pt ridiculed for failure to bathe & maintain personal hygiene "no one taught me how".  Now better with this…finished high school a few months late but with good grades.  He held a variety of jobs but lost all of them due to conflicts with co-workers, supervisors, or customers…"I have never fitted in"….was arrested for stealing a car at age 20 - also for marijuana possession…..has had vague thoughts of suicide, without plan or intent, in the remote past….very rare alcohol use…used marijuana daily from 1978 - 1989 but denies drug use since joining the Navy.
	MSE:  Does not appear to be responding to internal stimuli…thoughts generally linear…"

960207:	Portsmouth Naval Medical Center:  This 34 year old single male with about 7 years continuous active duty was admitted to the Center on 7 December 95 with the diagnosis of Observation for Suspected Mental Condition.  
	HOSPITAL COURSE:  Although unhappy with decision to admit him to the hospital, he was admitted voluntarily and he remained cooperative throughout his stay.  He remained irritable however and his angry retorts were often difficult to understand.  There were occasional verbal altercations with staff or fellow patients stemming from his strong sense of having been slighted to treated with disrespect after an otherwise innocuous exchange.  For example, while absorbed in some solitary activity such as playing ping-pong, a fellow patient's casual remark of greeting could evoke an angry expression which was wholly inappropriate as he seemed to interpret such friendly greetings as a mandate "to drop what I am doing to go with you".  His sophisticated vocabulary complicated things as he often used phrases or expressions that were intriguing but perplexing.  (e.g. "when you're going from Homer's Iliad to the vernacular" which he used to describe whey he has difficulty relating to most persons who are not as accomplished as he)  Psychological testing including an MMPI and RORSCHACH confirmed the staff's suspicion of a psychotic though disorder.  Though irritable, he ate and slept well; there was no evidence of clinical depression, anxiety or manic symptoms.  After informed consent was obtained from the patient, pharmacotherapy was initiated with Risperidone and Depakote.  The patient tolerated the medications well without adverse side effects.  There appeared to be some improvement in his ability to communicate effectively and staff observed him to be more social on the ward.  He thereafter advanced without difficulty in privilege level and he ultimately managed responsibly in an occupational setting off the ward.  At the time of discharge, it was felt that the patient had achieved maximum benefits of hospitalization.
	FINDINGS:  After adequate period of observation, evaluation and treatment, a conference of staff psychiatrists reviewed the available records and current findings and agreed that the service member suffers from a condition that precludes his rendering any further useful military service.
	DIAGNOSIS:  Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, DNEPTE, DSM-IV 298.90 manifested by persecutory delusions and though processes characterized by looseness of associations and tangentiality.
	Precipitating stress - routine military service
	Predisposition - none
	Impairment - Military service - moderate
		         Civilian industrial capacity - moderate
	RECOMMENDATION:  Following a review of the clinical findings, the Medical Board is of the opinion that the patient is unfit for further military service as a result of a condition that did not exist prior to enlistment into the service.  The Medical Board recommends that the service member's case be forwarded to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB).
	Applicant accepted findings of the Medical Board.

960412:	PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) advised applicant that he was unfit for duty due to the diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder NOS, 29890 with a 30% disability rating and that he would be placed n the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). 

960430:	Applicant accepted the findings of the PEB.

960528:	PEB, acting for the Secretary of the Navy, found applicant "unfit" to perform his duties and directed BUPERS to place Applicant on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a percentage of disability of 30.

960530:	BUPERS authorized the applicant's Temporary Disability Retirement with 30% disability rating with a release from active duty effective 1 July 96 and retirement effective 2 July 96.

960701:	Applicant released from active duty this date with general (under honorable conditions) and transferred to the temporary retirement list effective 960702.

980806:	Sheppard AFB, TX:  This is patient's first TDRL evaluation.  Since the time of his Medical Evaluation Board eval, pt has received follow up care at the Fort Worth and Dallas VA hospitals.  Pt admitted to Dallas VA Hospital as an inpatient in 7 Feb 97 for three weeks and on 27 Mar 97 for one month.  Pt has also received outpatient follow up in the mental health clinic at the Fort Worth VA Hospital.  Pt has been maintained on antipsychotic medications and is currently taking Haldol and Cogentin.  Pt continues to complain of "difficulty with his thinking."  Pt has noted no change in his physical health.  During past 25 months his Medical Board evaluation, pt has lived in A_, TX.  Pt lived with his parents for the first six months and then obtained an apartment where he currently resides.  His relationship with his parents is described as "pretty good now that I moved out." He has remained unemployed and describes his social interaction as "I don't really have any".
	DIAGNOSIS:  AXIS I:  Psychotic disorder, NOS.  AXIS II:  V71.09 No diagnosis.  AXIS III:  No diagnosis.
	RECOMMENDATION:  Pt's condition has remained about the same since his last Medical Board evaluation.  H remains unqualified for worldwide service and his psychiatric profile remains S4.  He is competent for pay and records.  He is not a danger to himself or others at this time.  Further care should include continued outpatient follow up at the VA hospital and continued medication.  Pt has been informed of these recommendations and verbalizes an understanding of them.

990303:	PEB, acting for the Secretary of the Navy, found applicant "unfit" to perform his duties and directed BUPERS to place Applicant on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) with a percentage of disability of 30.

990401:	Applicant was transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) this date with 30% disability rating in pay grade of E-4.  [This date confirm by COMNAVPERSCOM, PERS-82 on 10/23/00.]
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT         REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List on 960701 with general (under honorable conditions) due to disability with a 30% rating (A) and subsequently placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List on 990401 due to disability with a 30% rating (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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief.  When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant's performance and ability to conform to the military's standards of conduct and discipline.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant's diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his misconduct of record.  The applicant was found “fit for full duty” by a competent medical authority after the applicant's violations of the UCMJ.  The applicant was not found  “unfit for duty” until almost two years after the applicant’s misconduct.  Because of these findings, the Board sees no reason to change the applicant’s characterization of discharge from general to honorable.  Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  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, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Jun 1987 until 7 September 1997, Article 3860380, ACTION FOLLOWING APPROVED DISABILITY RETIREMENT.

B.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 8 September 1997 until Present, Article 1850-020 (formerly 386038), Action Following Approved Disability Retirement.

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 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