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

ex-ENFN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00296

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010116, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010629.  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.  I was discharged for a personality disorder.  His discharge is unfair because they said I had a personality disorder simply because they couldn't find anything medically wrong on x-rays of my knee; however I was experiencing major pain.  They physically took my crutches away and said I was fie.  Upon not leaving the hospital because I could not walk without my crutches, I was took to the psychiatric floor and treated.  They came to say I had a personality disorder and therefore, I was discharged under General conditions. I would like this discharge upgraded to honorable because I feel I served my country and the Navy honorably.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Performance Evaluations (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911210 - 920826	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920827		Date of Discharge:  940812

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  16 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  62

Highest Rate:  EN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  3.00 (2)		OTA:  3.4

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  5 

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:

940320:	Unauthorized absence from USS OBANNON.

940321:	Surrendered this date onboard USS OBANNON (1 day).

940425:	Emergency Care & Treatment, Charleston Naval Hospital:  Driver-restrained, Motor Vehicle Accident 0400.  Seen Orangebuy Hospital and released.  Now presents with severe headache and pain left knee, lower back.  Denies LOC.
	ASSESSMENT:  Motor Vehicle Accident with left knee contusion.
	DISPOSITION:  Quarters
	REFERRED to Branch clinic in a.m.

940520:	Unauthorized absence from USS OBANNON.

940525:	Surrendered this date onboard USS OBANNON (5 days).

940610:	NavHosp Charleston, Orthopedic Clinic:  Mbr comes in today almost two weeks from his previous visit.  In the interim apparently has only made one appointment at PT and that was the day immediately following his visit here in the clinic. Mbr failed to keep any of his subsequent appointments, when confronted about this directly, he initially was reluctant to acknowledge that he failed to show any initiative in cancelling or informing individuals of his perceived pain and inability to comply with PT.  He does admit now that he purposefully missed appointments and made no effort to contact either myself or individuals in PT.  H apparently has made very little effort on his own to regain flexion.
	ASSESSMENT:  Status post MVA and poor compliance to PT.
	PLAN:  Continue PT and further discussion.

940613:	Mental Health Clinic:  Possible Conversion Reaction.  Mbr evaluated and treated for Knee pain of unknown etiology.  Mbr has refused to follow PT regimen stating that he can't bend his left knee.  He believes he can not walk without aid of crutches.
	Provisional Diagnosis:  Conversion Reaction

940614:	Medical, USS OBANNON:  Symptom - Left Knee Pain, Meds: Motrin 800mg.  Mbr presents for exam of the left knee due to motor vehicle accident and complaint of left knee instability for 1 month.  Mbr states he can neither walk without crutches or bear weight or bend his left knee.  During exam mbr resisted examiners attempts at passive flexion by tightening his quadriceps muscles and thereby locking out his left knee.  Mbr was told there was nothing that could be done due to his non-compliance, he became argumentative and this examiner ended the session.
	ASSESSMENT:  R/O Malingering, R/O Conversion Reaction
	PLAN:  1) Consultation to Psychiatry Clinic, 2) Appointment 1000hrs 16 Jun 94, 3) Full duty.

940616:	Naval Hospital Charleston, Orthopedic Clinic:  Pt returns for a follow-up and today is seen examined by Dr. N_ as well as myself (Dr. P_).  I saw pt actually on Monday for a brief nonscheduled visit and at that time informed him that he should cease from using crutches and that he should energetically engage in PT.  I informed him as well at that time that I would be in touch with his supervisor on the ship as well as monitoring his progress in PT.  Today he comes in and is vocal about his feelings that everyone including PT, supervisors on the ship, and myself have minimized his complaints of knee pain.  When asked specifically what he felt that I had done to him, he responded that I had done nothing specifically other than inform his ship of the facts as I understood them. He states that his knee is no better and that "he is unable to bend his knee under his own power."  We looked in detail today the entire history of the present illness and the course to date.
	ASSESSMENT:  Knee Pain with unclear etiology.  
	PLAN:  Lab work, including CBC, ESR, Chem-16 and bone scan.
	Advise pt and ship that we do not see a clear etiology for his complaints and if workup as we have outlined is negative, we will probably have very little else to offer from an ortho standpoint.  Quite possible that he may benefit from some psychiatric evaluation which we will leave up to the ship to pursue.

940616:	Admitted to NavHosp Charleston:  Chief complaint - "I don't know; stress, I can't take it no more!"  This is the first psychiatric admission to hospital for this 20 year old, single, black, male, with approx one year and 10 months continuous active Naval service.  Pt entered the emergency room during the late afternoon of the day of admission insisting that he would hurt himself or others if forced to return his ship.  He claimed he would "do anything before going back to the ship".  His primary goal is separation from active military service.  All suicidal, homicidal, and destructive threats were within the context of avoidance of duty.  Pt was competent and accountable for his actions.  There was no evidence of neurovegetative findings of depression.  Pt also complained of knee pain subsequent to a recent auto accident.  Pt has been medically and orthopedically evaluated.  The assessment:  Knee pain with unclear etiology.  Psychiatric eval was recommended.  It was noted that pt was poorly complaint to physical therapy.  Upon completion of emergency department eval, pt was psychiatrically hospitalized.
	HOSPITAL COURSE:  Pt was admitted to Psychiatry Service and afforded individual, group, and milieu psychotherapy.  He ate and slept well.  Throughout hospitalization, he adamantly denied suicidal or homicidal ideation.  His primary concern remained to not return to his ship and expeditiously exit the U.S. Navy. He inter-related with fellow patients and staff.  Towards the end of his hospitalization he began to weight bear on his left leg.  He was competent.  At time of hospital discharge he had received max benefits of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
	DIAGNOSES:  1 - Homicide ideation - resolved.
			  2 - Suicide ideation - resolved.
	  3 - Malingering - manifested by marked discrepancy between the individual's claims of stress for disability and the objective findings, desire for secondary gain, desire to avoid work, and motivation by external incentives.
	  4 - Passive, aggressive personality disorder
	  5 - Knee problem - etiology uncertain
	  6 - Prostatitis
RECOMMENDATION:  Individual is and has been fully accountable for
his actions.  He is competent.  He presented at the Naval Hospital, Charleston emergency department solely in order to avoid duty aboard his ship.  Charges for past malfeasance are already pending.  Individual should be held fully accountable under the full weight of the UCMJ.  It is unlikely he will ever effectively adjust to military service.  He is not fit for sea duty.  If returns to his ship for any significant length of time prior to legal - admin processing for discharge, he will most likely act out in a self-destructive or externally destructive manner towards others.  It is unlikely that he will ever effectively adjust to military service.  Upon completion and sentencing of legal charges, this individual should be expeditiously separation from the Naval Service.

940622:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs):  absent himself from his unit; violation of UCMJ Article 115: purpose of avoiding his duty feign a sore knee.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $486 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940812 with a 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).

The applicant’s issue states:  “I would like this discharge upgraded to honorable because I feel I served my country and the Navy honorably.”  After review of the applicant’s service record the Board found his positive contributions were out weighed by his misconduct.  The applicant was found guilty at NJP of violation of UCMJ Article 115, Malingering, a serious military offense.  Relief based on this issue is not warranted.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, educational pursuits, employment history, and clean police record.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant 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 recommended

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 “afls10.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