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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00781

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020509, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant designated Albanian American Academy of Science & Arts as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030206.  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:  UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  “1910-130” vice “3620280.”  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  To Who It May Concern:
  Please be advised that the discharge I received was improper.  I was diagnosed with an Anti-Social Disorder which specifically states there must be a pervasive pattern or disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age fifteen years as indicated by three or more of the following (1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest, (2) deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure (3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults (5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others (6) consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.  This diagnose doesn't even come close in incorporating my behavior & actions.  The diagnose says I must have a pervasive pattern, which occurred since the age of fifteen.  I have never nor do I now possess any one of these following items under this diagnose.  Please refer to pages 4, 5, 6,7 for further explanation in my request to have the Dishonorable charge changed to honorable.  I hope you can read the statement in its entirety.

Submitted by Albanian American Academy of Science & Arts:

Please be advised that I would like the board to pay close attention to the diagnose my client was discharged.  The disorder, according to the DSM IV specifically states in order for someone to be diagnosed with an Anti-Social disorder they must meet the following criteria:  (1)  There must be a pervasive pattern or disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since the age of fifteen, as indicated by three or more of the followings:  (1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest (2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure (3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults, (5) reckless disregard for safety or self or others, (6) consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.  I would like to inform the board that this diagnose does not come close in defying my clients character and actions.  Please be advised that the diagnose says there must be a pervasive pattern, which occurred since the age of 15 (fifteen).  The psychologist who evaluated my client never attempted to seek any records that shows my client had this problem since the age of 15.  They psychologist assumed my client did, and he or she began to label my client with this disorder.  Please be aware that the psychologists evaluation has been submitted and as you can see he or she has marked yes to many of the criteria, but I believe in order for the psychologist to mark this conclusion he or she should have known that my client doesn't possess a criminal record so therefore, it is impossible for the psychologists to assume my client has failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeated acts that are grounds for arrest because the psychologists did not consider requesting criminal records before he or she marked yes on this criteria it should be viewed as improper.  The psychologist has also marked yes on impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.  If the board would direct their attention to my clients personal statement you will see that there is reasonable proof to believe my client does not act on impulsivity and he does plan ahead because as a child he was in the naval organization, with the intention to join the Navy when be became of age, which he has done.  My client also attended H.S., he realized he wasn't made out for it, so he didn't give up he joined the New York National Challenge Guard Program.  He obtained his GED and achieved academically in his studies.  When he graduated he enlisted in the Navy.  Therefore, once again the psychologist has labeled my client with a diagnose he does not fit.  The psychologist also marked yes where it says irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.  Once again my client explains the reason why he was fighting in his personal statement, but this incident did not happen repeatedly nor did he assault anyone.  The psychologist also marked yes for reckless disregard for safety and self others.  My client does not have total disregard for safety and self others because he has never inflicted any pain or suffering on anyone.  When my client took his oath, he believed he was going to fight, serve, and protect the freedom of the American people, so therefore, once again the psychologist wrongly accused my client of possessing a Anti Social disorder.  The psychologist has also marked yes for consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.  Enclosed you will see letters of recommendations that show my client has sustained a long period of work behavior, in which my client has honored financial obligations.  The psychologist has also marked yes for lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.  This is obsured to believe my client has stolen from anyone nor has ever mistreated anyone.  The main focus or issue would be to allow the board to realize that my client does not meet anyone of these criterias, so therefore, I ask the board to have my clients discharge changed.  The psychologist has wrongly diagnosed my client and has labeled him under a disorder wich is irrelevant to my clients character.  On the DD214 you will see the type of separation, which says discharged erroneous entry, which to my knowledge means my client possessed these symptoms before enlisting, but were not detected, but this separation is hard for me to accept because a psychologist did not follow the guide lines under the DSM IV for determining my clients condition.  My client has lived with his uncle for 21 years of his life, and his uncle Dr. S_ K_ is a clinical psychologist and I am sure if my client had an erroneous Antisocial disorder Dr. K_ would have been the first one to detect his condition.  I ask the, board to carefully review all submitted paper work and hopefully the board will realize my client has been labeled for something he does not possess.  Thank you.  Sincerely (Signed K_ K_)

P.S.  Enclosed is a copy of Congressman N_'s request of the disorder & discharge be look into.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Congressman J_ N_ to Adm R_, dtd Sep 3, 2002
Photos of a young Applicant in uniform
Applicant's Letter to the Board, dtd Nov 21, 2001 (8 pages)
Applicant's letter, undtd, informing Board of his being a student at Apex Technical
Letter of Employment from M_ B_, dtd Apr 15, 2002
Applicant's Enrollment Agreement, Apex Technical School, (Course dates 3/9/00 - 10/10/00)
Applicant's letter to the Board, dtd Sep 3, 2002, providing admin discharge package
Copy of DD Form 214 (Copies 4 and 1)
Copy of Applicant's Social Security Card
DD Form 372, Request for Verification of Birth
New York National Guard ChalleNGe Program letter, dtd Nov 18, 1999
Character Reference ltr from A_ J_ R_, dtd Jun 16, 1999
Applicant's Student Records Update (unreadable)
Applicant's Administrative Discharge Notification and Statement of Awareness, dtd Feb 8, 2000
Applicant's Recruit Mental Health Evaluation, dtd Feb 2, 2000
DoD MEPS Orders, dtd Dec 27, 1999
Applicant's Navy Enlistment Contract, dtd Dec 27, 1999
USMEPCOM Form 601-23-4, RESTRICTIONS OF PERSONAL CONDUCT IN THE ARMED FORCES

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	991123 - 991226	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991227		Date of Discharge:  000218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  9 - GED		AFQT:  37

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*	Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in service record.

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY (OTHER), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly Article 3620280).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000202:	Recruit Mental Heath, Administrative Separation Recommendation:  SR denied prior psychiatric treatment and denied a psychotropic medication history.  It is determined that SR has the following symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder:  Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicted by repeated acts that are grounds for arrest; impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.  SR's behavioral history supports diagnosis of conduct disorder in adolescence including argumentative, fighting, irritability, acting out behaviors.  SR's hardcard reflect problematic behaviors and continued anger management issues to include "banging his head" on the bulkhead after feeling overwhelmed and frustrated.  
	Assessment Confirms The Following Psychiatric Diagnosis:  
	AXIS I:   No Diagnosis Offered, V71.09
	AXIS II: Antisocial Personality Disorder, 301.7, EPTE
NRAM-SAC; 192(GFH) - PSYCH (Personality)
Plan & Recommendation:  1.  Entry level separation due to disqualifying psychiatric condition affecting SR's potential for performance of expected duties and responsibilities while on active duty.  2.  SR was encouraged to seek treatment for this condition(s) upon separation.  SR was educated regarding this condition and given an after care referral.  SR is suitable to report to Separations Division.

000208:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service possible as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an antisocial personality disorder.

000208:	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.

000209:	Commanding Officer, RTC, Great Lakes, IL directed the Applicant's discharge with an Entry Level Separation (uncharacterized service) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000218 with uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (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 documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the presumption that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 000202.  There was no compelling evidence reviewed that persuaded the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than two months in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  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 inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 12 Jun 01, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment. 

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