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

 ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND01-01063

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010810, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to End of contract/duty.  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 020307.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  This discharge is improper because it clearly states in Dr S_'s diagnoses that he found no psychiatric impairments, and I was fit for duty.

2.  This discharge is improper because it clearly states in section i, Personality Disorder in SECNAVINST 1910.4B Part 1 reasons for separation, that a separation is not appropriate when separation is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct.  It also states that the member should not be separated under this section regardless of the existence of a personality disorder.

Documentation

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

Copy of section i. Personality disorder from SECNAVINST 1910.4B (2 pages)
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Copy of applicant's DD Form 215
Fifty-five pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			940718 - 960118	HON (can't verify)
	Active:   USNR		920519 - 980508	HON
	Inactive: USNR		920513 - 920518	To report ACDU

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960119		Date of Discharge:  980508

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  57

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, NDSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960119:	Reenlisted for 6 years at NSHS San Diego, CA.

961223:	Applicant submitted to CG, MCAS, Cherry Point, NC, via CO, Halyburton Naval Hospital, documentation/responses to her allegations of discrimination, harassment, intimidation and dereliction of duty pertaining to informal and formal grievance.  [Information provided by the applicant.]

970110:	CO, NavHosp, Cherry Point, NC forwarded applicant request concerning her allegations of racial discrimination to CG, MCAS, Cherry Point.  [Information provided by applicant.] 

970224:	NavHosp Camp Lejeune:  25 year old female, black, complains of constant headaches.  No relief prescribed meds.  Also complains intermittent loss of appetite.  Pt has been seen by Acute Care.  Pt was given meds.  Complains of increase stress about work.
	Assessment:  Stress induced headaches.
	Plan:  Continue other meds as directed………Pt to follow-up tomorrow afternoon.

970306:	Mental Health Clinic, NavHosp, Camp Lejeune:  Chief compliant - "I've been having some headaches and stress due to discrimination at work."  IMPRESSION:  This young woman presents with history of significant conflict in her current job.  There is no obvious history to suggest a major psychiatric disorder.  Although she endorses some depressive symptom, these do not appear to be of sufficient severity to denote a major depressive episode.  It appears to be more likely that these are of a severity to suggest an adjustment disorder due to problems at work.  Although certainly in these situations character pathology is suspected.  Pt presents no evidence to suggest any obvious character pathology at the time of this evaluation.  Noted the pt has by at least her own report had no prior problems in Navy and has done very well in schools.  Sufficeth to say at this time, pt does not manifest symptoms of a major psychiatric illness, nor does she require, nor ask for medication.  
DIAGNOSES:  AXIS I:  1) Adjustment Disorder, with mixed emotional features. Resolving, 2) Occupational problem.  AXIS II:  Deferred.  AXIS III:  Tension headaches.
RECOMMENDATION:  1.  Pt fit for duty psychiatrically, pt should continue evaluation by neurology for her headaches.  2.  Pt should continue outpatient therapy as arranged with therapist at NavHosp, Cherry Pt, NC.  3.  Pt does not need to return to clinic unless further issues arise.  Pt may return here to Outpatient Mental Health Clinic.  4.  Pt understands provisions of plan and agrees.

980318:	Psychological Evaluation by LT C_:  Command notified on this date that applicant had been diagnosed with personality disorder.  In the event hat she failed to demonstrate acceptable performance after reasonable counseling and guidance, it was recommended she be administratively discharged without recourse to further mental health evaluation, hospitalization, or medical board. [Extracted from CO's letter of 2 Apr 98.]

970320:	Counseled with recommendations for corrective action, including showing proper respect for senior authorities; effectively performing the tasks expected fo a trained laboratory technician, and avoiding confrontation with fellow workers.  [Extracted from CO's letter of 2 Apr 98.]  Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (UA, late in mustering), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970617:	Counseled for deficiencies in her laboratory performance.  [Extracted from CO's letter of 2 Apr 98.]

980312:	LT F_, Laboratory Officer, memo documents numerous serious laboratory performance deficiencies including the discarding of untested specimens.  The accompanying synopsis tables show HN (Applicant) to have the worst performance record in the laboratory both for 1998 and separately since her arrival in 1996.  [Extracted from CO's letter of 2 Apr 98.]

980316:	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 psychological consultation dated 18 March 1997 and a page 13 entry dated 20 March 1997.

980325:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards noncommissioned officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation.
	Award: Reduction to HN.  

980402:	Commanding officer directed 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. 

980421:	Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune NC:  26 year old black female her for follow-up cervical strain after MVA 18 Apr 98.
	Plan:  Continue meds, limited duty 30 days, follow-up, pt returns as necessary or ASAP if symptoms returns.

980427:	Naval Medical Center, Cherry Point, Telephone consultation:  26 year old active duty HN with severe personality disorder NOS B traits) awaiting admin sep in 1 week now s/p MVA 18 Apr 98 p/w memory loss, neck pain, total loss of sensation right arm.  Was restrained driver struck on left side.  No bruising, loss of consciousness, blows to head.  
	IMPRESSION:  Non-physiologic subjective symptoms after MVA with evidence clearly indicating conscious or unconscious embellishment.  
	RECOMMENDATION:  Continue psychological follow up.  Follow patient clinically for now.  No further imaging needed at this time.  Admin sep is unrelated to this incident and should be done for the Needs of the Navy - takes precedence over medical topics.

Discharge package is missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980508 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).  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).

Issue 1.  The applicant states her discharge was improper because the Dr.’s medical diagnosis states that he found no psychiatric impairments and she was fit for duty.  The applicant’s service record contains a medical evaluation report, prior to the 980318 psychological evaluation report, that states she had no psychiatric impairments and was fit for duty.  However, a subsequent evaluation states the applicant suffered from a sever personality disorder NOS (B traits).  The Board determined there is enough documentary evidence in the applicant’s record to suggest she suffered from a personality disorder and was discharged appropriately.  The applicant’s discharge package is not available, therefore the Board assumed regularity in the conduct of government affairs.  Relief based on this issue of propriety is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “This discharge is improper because it clearly states in section i, Personality Disorder in SECNAVINST 1910.4B Part 1 reasons for separation, that a separation is not appropriate when separation is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct.  It also states that the member should not be separated under this section regardless of the existence of a personality disorder.”  The record shows the applicant was properly evaluated as having a personality disorder and issued a counseling warning that afforded her the opportunity to overcome her deficiencies.  She violated the counseling warning and was processed and separated from the naval service.  The applicant’s issue that she “should not be separated under this section regardless of the existence of a personality disorder (SECNAVINST 1910.4B)” is a misinterpretation of the instruction.  The section the applicant refers to states that “if separation is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct, the member should not be separated under this section regardless of the existence of a personality disorder.”  The Board found the applicant was not considered for separation due to unsatisfactory performance or misconduct, and she was properly processed for separation due to a diagnosed personality disorder.  Relief is denied.

The applicant requested the reason for discharge be changed to “End of Contract/Duty.”  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 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.  Relief is denied.

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 positive community service, 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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 31 Aug 1998, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER(S).

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 “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