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

 ex-ADAN, USN
Docket No. ND01-01117

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010820, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized.  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 020517.  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:  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  The issues or request is based upon a decision, I agreed upon in 1989.  My decision at that time, was due to my weakness and uneducated piece of mind.  Since that time, I am stronger, more educated, and more willing to deal with such situations.  This request is based upon improving my present situation as well as others including quality, performance, education and wide range of opportunity.  I hope that my performance during the military as well as after and present will assist in the decision for improvement!

Thank you, (Signed by the Applicant)

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	870422 - 870426	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870427		Date of Discharge:  890310

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  ADAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.8 (2)	Behavior:  2.8 (2)		OTA:  2.8

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890130:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (continually late for work/watch, financial irresponsibility, Personal Hygiene, Unauthorized absences, need excessive supervision), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890201:	Report of Offense:  Applicant unauthorized absence from NAS Hospital 0700 Bremerton Run.  Failure to be at appointed place of recall as of 0525.

890202:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work not at the barrack, shows up for work at 1015.

890206:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 0830.  Every morning I (PO2 K_) have to call barrack to wake him up.  If he is in his room, shows up for work at 0911.

890207:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 0920.  Called Barracks 3 to have PO W_ wake him up at 0745.

890207:	Report of Offense:  Failure to stand proper watch.  Applicant relieved me (AO2 G_) at 2145 and at 2345 I was awaken by barracks manager because no log entry's were made after I was relieved.  I went to ask Applicant whey there were no log entry's and he told me he was just sitting around passing time.  About 45 min. later I heard all kinds of noise coming from the area around the pay phone.  I got up to get things quiet and Applicant was just sitting at the front desk.  Also a drip bucket was over flowing on 3rd deck so I doubt if any rounds were ever made.

890208:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 0922.

890209:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work at the barracks in the rack.  0915 shows up for work.

890210:	Outpatient Clinic, NavHosp Bremerton:  Subject had originally been seen by psychologist, Dr. C_ in Dec 88, who found him fit for duty but having adjustment problems.  Subsequently, he was seen by Dr. S_ on a couple occasions.  Concern was expressed because of a history of multiple head injuries, possible impaired memory and concentration, blandness and possibly idiosyncratic thinking at times.  
Subject member presented himself in a rather disheveled, unkempt appearance.  He was cooperative but was taciturn and bland in expression.  He required an inordinate amount of time to fill of brief questionnaires.  He appeared socially inept and had little insight into his problems.  There was no evidence of a gross thought disorder, but it was suspected that he is prone to some eccentric thinking and daydreaming.  There was not clinically depressed and offered no vegetative symptoms.  He espoused no ideas of dangerousness to self or others.  He minimized his conflicts with the Command and recent episode of explosive behavior.  Certain characterological patterns appeared to be well established and point to a borderline level of personality structure and functioning.  Intelligence was assessed to be in the dull normal range and insights and judgmental functions poorly developed.  There was no evidence of an organic brain impairment and the sensorium was clear. 
Impression:  Mixed personality disorder, moderate to severe, with emotionally unstable, immature, schizoid and borderline features.
Recommendations:  Above condition does not constitute a question of fitness for duty and is not an issue for medical board.  Subject member is found to be psychiatrically fit for duty and responsible for his behavior.  However, he has a condition which does raise the issue of his suitability for military service.  It is anticipated that he will continue to have conflicts and serious adjustment problems if he remains on active duty and more problematic behavior is expected.  It is recommended that his Command consider administrative separation at its discretion.  Subject member is not in need of specific psychiatric services and no follow-up was offered at this time.

890213:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 0930.

890214:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work.  Reported for work 0830.

890216:	Report of Offense:  failed to report to UA-ISS 1ST Lt. For work on 16 Feb 80 at 0730.

890227:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - failed to show up for work, called barrack PO1 W_ told ADAN (Applicant) to go to work.  He showed up for work at 1157.  Working hours are 0730 - 1600.

890228:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - show up for work at 1210.

890301:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 1420.  Was recalled twice and didn't bother to come in.

890302:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government as evidenced by documented personality disorder, NAVPERS 1070/613 (page 13) of 30 January 1989 and interference with performance of duty through documented reports chits clearly in violation of the aforementioned page 13 warning.

890303:	Report of Offense:  Article 86 - didn't show up for work until 0815.  He was called two times at the barrack, CPO W_ and PO2 K_ went to barrack to get him.

890303:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.  Applicant did not object to separation.

890303:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder and interference with performance of duty.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "Since reporting to this command, ADAN (Applicant)'s overall performance has been unsatisfactory.  His immaturity and inability to adapt to the Navy have been a major problem.  Numerous report chits throughout 1988, eleven from the period of 11 Dec 1988 - 24 January 1989 prompted the page 13 warning of 30 January 1989.  Personal Evaluation (NAVPERS 1616/24) of 31 January 1989, although understandably inconsistent with SNM's overall performance, was written in the interest of SNM while the command awaited final psychological evaluation by Naval Hospital Bremerton.  When at work, his performance has been average to below average, requiring constant supervision.  Personal one-on-one counseling throughout the chain of command has not proved to be effective and has expended an inordinate amount of man-hours with little to no improvement, seen or forecast.  His continual problems following all available action on the part of his command leave me no alternative except to recommend separation.  ADAN (Applicant) has presented no major disciplinary problems to the command and the characterization of his service is General under Honorable Conditions.

890314:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge with type warranted by service record by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 890310 under honorable conditions (general) 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 was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 890210.  The applicant’s performance evaluation averages and record of adverse conduct does not meet the standard for an honorable discharge.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The applicant is not eligible for an entry level or uncharacterized separation since he served for more than 180 days.  Relief denied.

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 15560A), Change 6, effective 
11 Jan 89 until 13 Dec 89, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

B.  NAVOP 013/87 (CNO 201614ZFEB87) Delegated authority to Special Court-Martial Convening Authorities (SPCMCA's) to administratively separate enlisted members in certain circumstances.  Authority was delegated for separation of enlisted members with Honorable, General, or Entry Level discharges for the following reasons where member does not object to the separation.

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