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

 ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00820

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020517, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Detroit, MI.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) did not travel and all personal appearance hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region.  The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030214.  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 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

Dear Discharge Review Board:

Explanation For Discharge Upgrade

How problems in my service got started.  I was stationed onboard the USS Yorktown May 4, 2000.  First problems started in August 2000. I complained about neck and back pain do to being too tall for shipboard duty. (Racks were too small for proper rest).  And moving through out the ship I always had to be hunched over and bending down it was very uncomfortable and caused me a lot of pain.  I was given a light duty chit by the squadron doctor pending an orthopedic appointment for no shipboard duty.  My chain of command did not like the fact that the doctor did not want me on the ship until I saw an orthopedic specialist, and said the chit was only a recommendation they did not have to follow it and I was to continue working onboard the ship.  The captain ordered me to go see another doctor at the clinic that they wanted me to see, so he would say there was nothing wrong with me and over rule the doctor that recommended I be off the ship, and that's what happened, neither one of them was an orthopedic man, and my ship never let me see an orthopedic specialist they ignored the problem and said I was a crybaby to forget about it and suck it up, they did not care if I was experiencing any physical pain.  The only thing I was able to do is go to physical therapy, while the ship was in port.  I went to captain's mass in December of 2000 for disobeying an order, and I was restricted to the ship for 30 days, as a result I missed Christmas and new years with my family, they were not even allowed to visit me on the ship.  The order I disobeyed was I refused to lift heavy boxes during a supply load because of my back pain, the incident occurred in October of 2000, captain's mass did not occur until December of 2000 and I was told it was because they wanted me on restriction during the holidays to teach me a lesson.  I told the captain at mass I refused to lift the boxes because of my back, and he said, I was suppose to do what I was told, when one of his officers says so, and if I did not want to do what I was told then to get the fuck out of his Navy!  When I would ask if I could see a doctor or what they were going to do about my problem I was told no one cared.  The Command Master Chief told me he would give me a bad discharge and a bus ticket home if I wanted to get out of the navy.  This type of negative treatment went on for a year.  Finally, I got tired of the situation and I told my chain of command I was going to hurt somebody if they did not do something about my medical problem.  They sent me for a psychiatric eval and then discharged me for having a personality disorder.  My service was Honorable, I did good work as best I could under the circumstances and I do not have a disorder.  The discharge I received said General Under Honorable Conditions In stead of flat Honorable.  I should not have to walk around the rest of my life with a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge that says I have a personality disorder when I don't, and my service was honorable.  The VA has denied me benefits for my GI bill based on my discharge and I have been denied employment based on it, if it continues like this how could I become a productive member of society.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Character Reference ltr from NCC(SW/AW/NAC) M_ E. R_, USN, dtd Apr 25, 2002
Dept of Veterans Affairs ltr to Applicant dtd Apr 2, 2002 concerning education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill
Medical Consultations, Branch Medical Clinic, Pascagoula (4) including Light Duty Chit dtd Sep 6, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990916 - 991108	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991109		Date of Discharge:  011024

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  PNSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (2)	Behavior:  1.5 (2)		OTA:  1.92

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Navy "E" Ribbon

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:

990916:	Wavier granted for enlistment due to height (78.5").

001010:	Counseled concerning failure of the Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA).  Advised of consequences of further deficiencies.

001212:	NJP held and concluded on 17DEC00.  [EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT'S EVALUATION REPORT FOR PERIOD FROM 00FEB17 TO 01JUL15.]  

010910:	81st MDOS/SGOH, Keesler AFB, MS:  Applicant  evaluated by the Inpatient Psychiatry Service at Keesler Medical Center.  There is no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels… This individual is mentally responsible for his behavior and possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand and cooperate intelligently as a respondent in any administrative or judicial proceedings that might involve him.  Present psychiatric examination indicates the presence of an adjustment disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct which were precipitated by his maladaptive response to occupational problems.  The essential features of this condition are the development of clinically significant emotional, behavioral and conduct symptoms in response to an identifiable psychosocial and occupational stressor(s).  This individual is showing significant impairment to this military adaptability of such severity that he was having recurrent homicidal ideations triggered by difficulty in managing his anger.  His homicidal ideations have resolved after receiving crisis management at Keesler Medical Center.  There are no safety issues with regard to imminent dangerousness to himself, others or government property which would require further psychiatric hospitalization.   
DSM IV Diagnoses:
AXIS I:  (309.4) Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and conduct (Reason for Admission)
AXIS II:  Personality Disorder NOS with Narcissistic and Passive-Aggressive Features
AXIS III:  None
The disorder noted above is so severe that the member's ability to function in the Navy environment is significantly impaired and interferes with the member's performance of duty.  He was homicidal in the context of the current chain of command.  Weapons bearing and shipboard duty on the USS YORKTOWN are not recommended.  If he is retained on active duty or shipboard duty, he will continue to jeopardize his safety, and the safety of his peers and negatively affect the Navy mission.  Due to his personality disorder he will continue to be susceptible to such events as Adjustment Disorders while in his current duty environment, and that such events will require further hospitalizations and administrative action.
Expedient separation under the appropriate administrative instruction should be considered given the nature and severity of his problem along with follow-up with a mental health provider for his personal benefit after release from this facility.

010926:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of service possible as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

011004:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to make a statement and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

011005:	Commanding Officer, USS YORKTOWN, recommended discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  "SN  (Applicant) is being processed for a personality disorder that includes numerous threats directed at myself and the crew, and that have strongly affected his work performance.  We do not take these threats lightly and ordered him to receive a MHE.  The examination concluded that his performance of duty and work onboard ship were "significantly impaired." Having dealt with these issues for over a year, I concur with this recommendation and request that his administrative separation be expedited."

011010:	Commander, Naval Surface Group Two, Mayport, FL directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 011024 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. (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.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion and a behavior trait evaluation average below the standard required for honorable service.  While he may feel that his chain of command and the discomfort of working onboard a naval vessel were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  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.  Relief denied.

The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 010910.  There was no compelling evidence reviewed that persuaded the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 
14 Aug 2001 until Present, 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 “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