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

ex-AA, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00042

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001011 requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The applicant designated the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he 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 010313.  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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (Equity Issue) This former member which now regrets his inservice misconduct opines that it is inequitable for him to continue to suffer the adverse effects of his less than fully honorable discharge.  On this basis, he petitions the Board's relief.

2.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's letter to the Board dtd Aug 7, 2000
Character Reference statement from P_ G_, dtd 8 Mar 2000
Character Reference statement dtd 5 Mar 2000
Character Reference statement from M_ P_ dtd 25 Jan 2000
Character Reference statement from M_ J_ dtd 26 Jan 2000
Character Reference statement from L_ J. G_ dtd 5 Apr  2000
Miami-Dade Police Check dtd 14 Jan 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940609		Date of Discharge:  950929

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  04
	Inactive:  00  01  16

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12¼		AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (1)	Behavior:  2.6 (1)		OTA:  2.8

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Navy "E" Medal

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  2

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940726:	Commenced active duty for 36 months under Airman Apprenticeship Program.

940727:	Retention Warning:  . Advised of deficiency (despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre-service civil involvement and/or drug abuse UA), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

950725:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Absence without leave - did, on or about 2400, 7 Jul 95, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: VAQ-140, located at NAS Whidbey Island, WA, and did remain so absent until on or ab out 2240, 9 July 95; violation of UCMJ Article 107:  False Official Statements - did on or about 00825, 8 July 95, with intent to deceive, make to LT W. J. G_, USN, an official statement, to wit:  that he could not make his 1600-2000 Hangar Watch because he was stuck in Seattle at the residence of his "best friend" from high school who did not have a phone and whose last name he could not remember, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the said Airman Apprentice to be so false.  
	Award:  Restriction for 60 days and a written reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950728:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (violation of the UCMJ Article 86 (UA) and Article 107 (false official statements)), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

950816:	Naval Hospital Oak Harbor Mental Health Dept:  This was the 3rd evaluation for this 20 year old male sent for evaluation of suicidal ideation.  
Impression:  Assessment of suicide/homicide risk is low.  Meets pre-service criteria for oppositional deficient, possibly conduct disorder.  Has a history of difficulty in relationship in service and with work.  Unresponsive to treatment with medication for depression component. 
Diagnosis:  Axis I:  Dysthymia Adjustment Disorder; ETOH abuse in remission; Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS, Severe with antisocial, Narcissistic features; 
Recommendation:  Although pt is fit for duty and responsible for the UCMJ he is not suitable for continued military service due to a severe personality disorder.  If retained on active duty his person posses a significant risk for self-destructive behavior and a continuing danger to himself and others.  Expeditious consideration should be given to immediate processing for administrative separation.

950908:	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.

950911:  	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.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950929 General (under Honorable conditions) for Convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. (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).

Issue 1.  The applicant state he regrets his misconduct and feels it is inequitable to continue to suffer the adverse effects of a less than fully Honorable discharge.  The NDRB determined there is no merit to this issue.  The applicant’s discharge characterization is based on the type service the applicant provided to his country.  In addition to a diagnosis of severe personality disorder the applicant was found guilty of misconduct at NJP.  The characterization of the applicant’s military service as General (under Honorable conditions) was proper and equitable.  Relief denied. 

Issue 2.  The applicant lists post-service conduct as justification to upgrade the characterization of his service.  The NDRB determined the documentation provided by the applicant (character reference letters) was insufficient to justify upgrading the characterization of his discharge.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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.  However, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

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 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