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

 ex-ET3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00649

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020411, 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 030124.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned that the Applicant was improperly discharged under NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 due to the failure of his command to provide a retention warning. The NDRB discerned no inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service, but did discerned an impropriety in the reason for the discharge, and determined that partial relief is warranted.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall remain the same but the reason for discharge will change.  The discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, Authority MILPERSMAN Article 1910-164, Separation Code of JFF.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Would like the discharge looked into.  I feel it was unjust (attached binder of information).

2.  Discharge was given for Convenience of Government and now there is a large signing bonus I must pay back due to the JFV Code they put on the discharge.  We feel that is unjust.  We don't feel we should have to pay back the bonus because no choice was given on discharge.

3.  I had a mental condition and they discharged for Convenience so that no counseling was given.  That just added more stress to the situation.  Attached binder will give information on these issues.

4.  Other issues and research on mental condition in binder with guide in front of binder.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's spouse letter of 10 Mar 2002
A.D.A.M. Accredited Health Web Site concerning Borderline Personality Disorder/Anxiety/Stress/Depression information obtained from web site (30 pages)
Navy Family Service Center Program, Privacy Act Statement, with Client medical consultation (10 pages)
Military Medical Record (14 pages)
Administrative Discharge Package and related information (8 pages)
Enlisted Performance Evaluations (11 pages)
Applicant's rebuttal to stated diagnosis for discharge (7 pages)
Applicant's DFAS Account Statement showing indebtedness dtd 29 Aug 2001
Statement of Military Pay Account dtd 30 Mar 2001 (2 pages)
Total of SRB Recoupment rquirement
Copy of Applicant's Military Health/Medical Record
Ltr to Applicant from Representative W_ L. J_, dtd Nov 26, 2001 providing BUMED's response to injuiry
Ltr from BUMED to Representative W_ L. J_, dtd 8 Nov 2001 regarding Applicant
Ltr to Applicant from Representative W_ L. J_, dtd Dec 3, 2001 providing NPC'S response to injury
Ltr from NPC to Representative W_ L. J_, dtd Nov 27, 2001 regarding Applicant
Copy fo DD Form 214
Copy of Applicant's Military Service Record (66 pages)
Copy of Applicant's Military Dental Record17 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	951206 - 951227	COG
	Active:   USN			951228 - 991024	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991025		Date of Discharge:  010330

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  96

Highest Rate:  ET3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (2)	Behavior:  1.5 (2)		OTA:  2.5

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM, MUC, Navy "E" Ribbon, GCM, AFEM, AFSM, SSR, LoC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

991025:	Reenlisted 6 years onboard USS ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG-51).

010206:	Mental Health Division, Medical Evaluation:  The 24 year old married Caucasian male ET3 with 5 years 2 months military service aboard the USS ARLEIGHE BURKE who was referred to the Mental Health Division by his Corpsman.  Chief complaints consisted of inflicting multiple superficial cuts, with a knife, to his left forearm on 2 Feb 2001.  Pt reports that he was having a normal day but in a bad mood when he assumed the watch.  He reportedly brooded over being homesick and became increasingly more upset.  A co-worker attempted to provide assistance but to no avail.  Pt reportedly wanted to be left alone and the fact that others were attempting to assist him made him "more annoyed."  He continued to brood and decided to "cut myself to go home."  Pt reports having felt "depressed" which meant, "alone, feeling like everything is so far away, impatient, missing wife and kids and having a problem sleeping."  Pt acknowledged that he did not want to die and that he has had thoughts of inflicting self-harm in the past when away form family and underway.  He describes "everyday pressures aboard the ship" but is unable to really indicate any major stressors except homesickness and neediness for wife's support.
	PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:  Testing with the Personality Assessment Inventory reveals depressive symptoms along with borderline personality traits.  No evidence of Psychosis.
	DIAGNOSIS:  AXIS I:  Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  R/O Major Depression.   AXIS II:  Personality disorder NOS with dependent, inadequate and immature features.
	PLAN:  1.  Consider returning Pt to homeport without returning him to the Ship.  Expeditious Admin discharge due to service member intentionally inflicting harm onto himself and he will continue to be a safety risk to self and others if returned to the ship.  2.  Pt does not require an escort when returned to homeport.  3.  The diagnoses and recommendations were discussed with Patient.  

010207:	Head, Mental Health Division:  Pt evaluated from 3-7 Feb 2001.  Pt referred by his Command.
	Diagnosis:  AXIS I - Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct.  AXIS II - Personality Disorder NOS with dependent, immature and inadequate features.
	Recommendation:  Attending clinical psychologist advises Expeditious Administrative Separation.  Pt is not considered mentally ill and is returned to full duty.  This individual does manifest a longstanding disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to interfere with him serving adequately in the Navy.  Although not imminently suicidal or homicidal, he is at continuing risk to do harm to himself or others if retained in the service.  Expeditious administrative separation is strongly recommended.  In the examiner's opinion, the pt does not possess a severe mental disease or defect for purpose of RCM 706 examinations and is considered competent.

010222:	CO, USS ARLEIGH BURKE directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability.  Commanding Officer's comments:  "ET3 E_ (Applicant) received an administrative separation with the characterization of general from the naval service by reason of Convenience of the Government - Physical or Mental Conditions.  ET3 E_ (Applicant) is currently on his second deployment in which he has shown the inability and lack of personal motivation to cope with the rigors of naval service.  He suffers from reported periods of extreme depression, mood swings, poor performance, and absences from ARLIGH BURKE due to his personal problems.  Additionally, ET3 E_ lacks the personal motivation to fulfill his commitment to his recent reenlistment which included a significant reenlistment bonus, at the expense of his own personal desires.  While I believe he is simply immature, the fact that he works himself into emotional frenzies concerns me.  Enclosure (4) (Unit SITREP (C)) is the result of such a frenzy.  ET3 E_ (Applicant) refuses to "contract" that if kept aboard ARLEIGH BURKE he won't hurt himself again.  It is for these reasons, I discharged ET3 E_ (Applicant) with a characterization of general."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 010330 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability. (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 reason for discharge was improper but that the character of the Applicant’s discharge under honorable conditions (general) was equitable (C and D).

Issues 1-4.  After a review of the member’s entire service record, the Board found that the Applicant’s command improperly discharged the member when the command failed to properly counsel the member concerning his condition and measures that he might take to ensure his continued service on active duty.  The Board noted specifically the administrative letter from the Applicant’s command where it was noted that no counseling was conducted prior to the member being processed for separation.  Therefore, the Board voted to change the reason for the member’s separation from “condition not constituting a disability” to “Secretarial Authority.”

Although the Board found the discharge improper, the characterization of the member’s discharge was determined to be proper.  The Board based its decision primarily on the member’s individualized trait average for behavior.  Given that this value was less than 2.0, and given the comments made by the Applicant’s former CO, the Board voted not to upgrade Applicant’s discharge.

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant.  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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  Relief based on this issue is denied.

The Applicant 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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective
20 May 99 until 27 Aug 01, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS.

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 “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