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

 ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00824

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020520, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Application further requested a change of reenlistment code.  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 030311.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge from service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that an honorable characterization is not warranted.

The Board did find, however, that the characterization of service authorized by the separation authority at the time of the Applicant's discharge was "UNCHARACTER-IZED" yet her DD Form 214 reflects a characterization of "GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS".  This error will be corrected accordingly.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I am respectfully requesting a change of my re-enlistment code from an RE-4, to one that would allow me to begin a new commitment with the Navy.  The reason for the delay of this request is simply that I had not re-considered a future with the Navy until now.
Upon my discharge from NATTC-Pensacola, I had requested a copy of medical record approximately 5 weeks after my return to Montana.  I reviewed it, and read through the report written by Cdr H_ (the Navy psychologist I had seen at NATTC).
As I read through the report, I realized that there were many parts that I remembered to have happened differently.  There was also one point that Cdr H_ completely contradicts herself (mental status examination and impression) (Page 2).  I was curious as to what exactly an Re-4 code pertained to and I looked it up.  To my surprise I found that I would not be allowed to re-enter the military.  I wonder to this day why I had not been told all of things before my discharge.  I considered appealing it at that time, but I had been through so much by then, it seemed redundant.  On top of matters complicating the situation then, I had been through many personal problems prior to my discharge.  I had first requested to see a psychologist or counselor shortly after I had returned to NATTC from HARP duty in Montana.  I had stayed with my fiancée for the three weeks I was there and things between us were not going well, which added to the [fact] that is common among new enlisted members in the military.  I realized upon my return, that I had become withdrawn and was not enjoying things as I did before I went on hard duty.  I recognized this as depression, as I had had experience with this in my past.
I wanted to overcome this, due to the fact that I enjoyed the Navy and wanted to continue performing work up to standards I knew I was capable of.  (I graduated in the top of my division from boot camp, was eligible for a NAM -- I Recruited 4 people on HARP duty -- and was looking forward to my future in the Navy and the opportunities that awaited me.)  When I saw Cdr H_, it seemed she was focusing more on the problem, rather than the solution I needed help with.  As for my history of depression, I was 16 years old at the time and had more stress in my life than I knew how to handle my reaction to this was far more a way of indirectly asking for help, than an actual suicide attempt.  Through realization of this and maturity, I loosened up and worked on my tendencies toward perfectionism.  I would like, also, to address Cdr H_'s accusation of fradulent enlistment.  I had provided documentation of my mental health history to my recruiter.  At my security clearance interviews in boot camp, it became evident that there was nothing pertaining to this in my records.  I assume this was left out intentionally by my recruiter.  I told the civilian who was interviewing me of this and aquired the records needed.  These were then placed in my enlistment record.  This explains Cdr H_'s inability to find them in my medical record. In conclusion, I am a year away from receiving my bachelor's degree in pre-medicine, and plan to proceed with medical school.  I would love to achieve this while pursuing a military career simultaneously.
Thank you for your consideration.

I.  I would like to furter note that even in the case I were not contesting the impression and/or diagnosis by Cdr H_, her diagnostic impression is not permanently disqualifying (per COMNAVCRUITCOMINST - 1130.8F; listed under psychological conditions (personality disorder); page 2-77).  This document states that only personality disorders of a severe nature are disqualifying.  In Cdr H_'s opinion, I was diagnosed with borderline features (under diagnostic impression, Axis II).  She goes on to say under recommendations: "Recommend administrative separation due to severe personality disorder."  I am somewhat confused by this contradiction.

II.  I am also including a copy of my re-classification document that is from boot camp.  Once again, reclassification was due to failure of security clearance for the CTI program.

Documentation

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

Applicant's DD Form 214
Four pages from Applicant's medical record
Summary of psychosocial history dated August 27 2001 from licensed Psychologist
One page from Applicant's service record
Character reference from pastor dated April 12, 2002
Job/character reference dated August 9, 2001
Job/character reference dated August 9, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	991119 - 991130	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991201		Date of Discharge:  000421

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  04  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  93

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB			Behavior:  3.00 (1)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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:

000405:	Recommendation for Expeditious Administrative Separation from CO, NAVHOSP, Pensacola to CO, Naval Air Technical Training Center (NATTC), Pensacola: Clinical Impressions: Applicant diagnosed with a personality disorder (not otherwise specified) with borderline features; existed prior to entry.  The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the Naval service.  Applicant was considered self-destructive and a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

000412:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge 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.  Applicant advised that the least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).

000412:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights.

000421:	Report of Administrative Separation to COMNAVPERSCOM: Commanding Officer, NATTC directed an uncharacterized discharge 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.  Commanding Officer's comments: "[Applicant] was diagnosed by medical authorities as having a severe personality disorder which is virtually untreatable in a military facility.  She is considered a serious threat to the safety and well-being of herself or others which renders her incompatible with military service." 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000421 with a characterization of 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), but the characterization was incorrectly stated.

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends that her discharge was improper as inconsistencies in her medical diagnosis as well as an accusation of fraudulent enlistment made by medical authority are indicative of an erroneous process.  The NDRB found the Applicant’s diagnosis to be proper.  Additionally, the records the Board reviewed showed that any accusations of fraudulent enlistment made by medical authority at the time were in no way used as a basis for the Applicant's separation from service.  The Applicant's discharge was based upon her condition as diagnosed during her time in service (specifically that she was considered a continuing risk of harm to self and others) and not upon any condition that existed prior to enlistment.  The Applicant's command did act according to applicable Naval directives and the Board found no errors or inequities in the discharge process.  Further, no other narrative reason for discharge more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant also states that she enjoyed serving in the Navy and contends that her record reflects an honorable period of service.  The Board recognizes that there are no derogatory entries in the Applicant's service record but also recognizes that the Applicant was in an entry-level status at the time the Commanding Officer notified her of his recommendation for discharge.  The Applicant's Commanding Officer, therefore, was required to order an uncharacterized discharge to be issued unless the Applicant's service record indicated unusual meritorious personal conduct or performance of military duty.  The Applicant's record, however positive, did not contain any entries so meritorious as to warrant an honorable characterization.  Relief is therefore denied and, as the Applicant's Commanding Officer did in fact order an uncharacterized discharge to be issued, the Board will direct the character of discharge on the Applicant's DD Form 214 to be corrected from general (under honorable conditions) to uncharacterized.

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The Applicant is advised that changes to reenlistment codes are beyond the authority of the NDRB and that she should address this issue to the Board for Correction of Naval Records.  The Applicant is further advised that reenlistment codes do not necessarily bar a former service member from re-entering service and that she should address the issue of a waiver to the applicable service recruiter.

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of her 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 27, effective 
27 March 2000 until 13 Aug 2001, 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