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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00706

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010424, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a Traveling Panel closest to San Antonio, TX.  The applicant designated the Texas Veterans Commission 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) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC area.  He was also advised that the board first conducts  documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127.  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

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant or his representative introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

Documentation

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

Police Record Check dated April 2, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214
Chronological ordered list of employments

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940804 - 941016	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941017		Date of Discharge:  960708

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  MNF*	Behavior:  MNF	OTA:  1.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

* Marks Not Found in service record.

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:

950811:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Absence from place of duty; violation of UCMJ Article 113:  Misbehavior of a lookout.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [EXTRACTED FROM CO, USS LEFTWICH'S LTR OF 26 JUN 96].

960510:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Absence from place of duty.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960515:	Naval Medical Clinic, Pearl Harbor, HI (Psychiatric Evaluation):  This was first USN psychiatric eval for this 21 year old married, Caucasian male, E2/SN with one year and seven months of continuous active duty stationed at USS LEFTWICH.  Was seen on an emergent basis at NAVMEDCL, Mental Health Department, Pearl Harbor due to homicidal ideation.  
Chief Complaint:  Stress, unable to deal with problems with Command.
History of Present Illness:  Pt seen in emergent psychiatric eval due to concerns regarding his homicidality.  Pt reported several stressors since Dec 95, including allegations that his seven year old stepdaughter was molested by a shipmate, reporting it to Family Advocacy Program (FAP), and feeling as though they were not doing anything about it; Captain's Mast for being fifty minutes UA and currently being on restriction; feeling harassed by his Command (particularly his Chief), regarding his marriage to a woman fifteen years his senior with six children; having Hawaiian Electric Company contact his command regarding an unpaid electric bill which was reportedly a misunderstanding; and generally feeling unsupported by his Command………..Although the pt has had two Captain's Masts, the pt felt hat his problem was not his own behaviors, but the behavior of others on his ship and their tendency to focus on his marriage to an older woman…………Although pt stated that he would refrain from harming anyone, it is likely that p would continue to be a disciplinary problem and impediment to good working order due to his inability to accept responsibility for his behaviors and his continued insistence that it is his Command that has been creating problems for him.  Regardless of counseling and other disciplinary actions, it is not likely that the pt will change his coping mechanisms or change his feelings regarding his situation.  Pt denied current suicidal/homicidal ideation, intent or plan and denied history of gestures or attempts.  
Diagnosis:  Axis I:  Occupational Problem V62.2; Axis II:  Personality disorder NOS with Immature and Avoidant Personality Features, #301.9; Axis III: None known.
Recommendation:  1 - Pt is psychiatrically fit for return to full duty, but unsuitable for retention, and is responsible for his actions.  2 - Suicidal/homicidal risk is currently judged to be low with no ideation, plan or history.  However, if pt retained in the USN, it is likely that homicidal risk my increase due to his anger and rage toward his Command and his inability to copy effectively with these feelings.  
4 - Member is not considered mentally ill, but manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to render the individual incapable of serving adequately in the Navy.  Member does not presently require, and will not benefit from hospitalization or psychiatric treatment.  Although not presently considered suicidal or homicidal, he is judged to represent a continuing danger to self or others if retained in the Naval service.  Member deemed fit for return to duty for immediate processing for admin separation which should be initiated expeditiously by his Command.

960624:	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 psychiatric evaluation on 15 May 1996.

960625:	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.

960626:	Commanding Officer, USS LEFTWICH, advised BUPERS applicant's discharge was directed with a 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, and applicant was discharged on 8 July 1996.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960708 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).

Issue 1.  The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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 relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  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 13, effective 24 June 1996 until 02 Oct 1996), 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