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

 ex-MM2, USN
Docket No. ND02-00840

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020529, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030221.  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 3620225.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I do not believe that a personality disorder was a justified reason to be discharged.  I had served without any indication of this diagnosis until the events occurred that caused this course of action to be taken.  I did go to captains mast once and was awarded restriction.  However, I had no further problems of that kind and my second captains mast resulted in no punishment.  My service was very exceptional. I requested and did not receive a hardship discharge which is outlined in my attached letter page 2 paragraph 2.  Upon transferring to the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN I discovered a very different and troublesome command according to pages 3, 4 of attached letter. When stress levels reached their peak, the command nor the psychiatrist I saw did any thing to help me cope with the situation and continue my obligated service. Refer to page 4 last paragraph and page 5 1st and 2nd paragraph. I do believe that had I been allowed to continue and finish my service I would have been given an honorable discharge. I was also not informed that upon taking this discharge I would lose my GI Bill benefits.  Had I been informed I would not have accepted this discharge and would have finished my service.

Letter submitted by the Applicant, underlining used to emphasis the portion of the letter mentioned in Applicant's issues.

Dear Board Reviewers:

Please peruse and consider the following appeal to upgrade my naval discharge in July 1997 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.
Enlistment history:

August 1990:		Boot camp- Orlando, Florida
Nuclear MM 'A' School- Orlando, Florida
Nuclear Power Plant School- Orlando, Florida
Nuclear Power Training Unit- Idaho Falls, Idaho
1992-1996:		USS Carl Vinson
1996-1997:		USS Abraham Lincoln

My enlistment in the military provided me with career, educational, and personal goals and the opportunities to develop and achieve them.  Positive experiences within the naval training programs enhanced personal maturation in the ability to identify, prioritize, and complete those goals.  Classroom instructors and supervisors were encouraging and personally went "the extra mile" for individualized instruction and quality hands on training.  Their conduct was conducive to a well balanced educational atmosphere of concerted study and lightness of spirit that respected one's dignity as an enlisted man serving one's country.

This same educational support was continued by the command of the USS Carl Vinson where I continued with college courses.  Not only were the officers supportive of my educational goals, they were also essential in providing opportunities of personal responsibility to prove and improve myself respective of my value as a trained member of the military.

The USS Carl Vinson team took an active role in addressing the personal, emotional, and familial issues which are inherent in military service.  They encouraged dialogue and problem resolution.  Indeed, my mother-in-law is enduring serious medical disability which often necessitates the use of home health care, nurses' aides, and physical therapists and reliance on Supplemental Security Income (Social Security program for the disabled based on low income).  She is single living in the west with nearest relatives in Minnesota.  After several in-depth discussions the chaplain of the Vinson over this unfortunate situation, I applied for a hardship discharge so that my wife and I, the most mobile and able to help, could.  Although the hardship discharge was later denied because she was not my mother, I appreciated the fact that I was able to pursue the application with the endorsement of the command.

I requested and was granted a transfer to the USS Lincoln dry-docked in the Puget Sound.  This location was nearer to my mother-in-law and gave my wife and I peace of mind should anything happen.  I was certainly expecting the remainder of my naval career through August 1998 to move under the same philosophies of the training programs and the command of the USS Carl Vinson as stated heretofore.  However, this was not the case.

The training atmosphere of the Lincoln in dry dock was cumbersome at best.  Classroom study was off ship.  Moving from the classroom to go on board, in plant disrupted continuity of thought and task especially since the on ship, in plant had scaffolding every where so it was difficult to see what the plant operators were doing; when on ship, in plant had various pumps, valves, and equipment parts missing; when there were no lectures on systems or theories; and when greater emphasis placed on the cleanliness and looks of the plant than on "what it does and how."

My personal goal was to get qualified for all the watches.  The accomplishment of this goal seemed secondary to extraneous tasks, cleaning, and painting.  Because I had been in plant previously on the Vinson, I suspected the instructors assumed I was just as familiar with the Lincoln plant and therefore, I often felt I did not receive the individualized instruction I needed.  I was frustrated that my personal goal seemed to be put off by extraneous tasks and by no one in particular.  Yet, at the same time, my instructors seemed to think my progress in attaining watch certification was not as rapid as they expected.  Their expectations were never relayed to me in clear, concise terms or increments that could be measure and tested within a specified time frame.  This ambiguity created a breakdown in the instructor-student relationship with little hope of resolution.

Every month and equal opportunity survey was taken.  All surveys were anonymous.  Every survey had a comment and concerns section.  However, none of the suggestions or concerns were ever addressed.  In fact, as we, the enlisted men, talked, most of us did not think the chain of command cared about us as individuals.  We felt our emotional well-being was cached in the "put up, shut up" realm where the grievance procedures established by the Navy to address these issues a trapping.  The low morale of the crew as indicated by the equal opportunity surveys had an undercurrent of fear- if one expressed dissatisfaction, the chain of command would take negative action. 

The command instituted a seven day work week.  Time management was difficult with sleep disruption patterns all too often a negative in completing regular watches, studying for other watches and testing, performing auxiliary duties, cleaning, and other designated tasks.  This combined with low morale, little individual performance satisfaction, and emotional distance of the command created a most difficult working environment.

A fellow shipmate tried to commit suicide.  I found out about it through my wife.  When I went to the ship, no one knew about it.  I had to tell all of his friends.  The command, if they knew, did not tell anyone nor did they extend any concern by offering support or resolution of issues that led to his attempt and our low morale.

My stress level was reached a few days later when I was in charge of the watch that had to respond to casualty drills.  I was encouraged by one officer to "try to make it through." After the drill, he took me up to his office and talked to me.  He seemed like "the only bright light on the ship." He referred me to a doctor in Medical.  The doctor, in turn, referred me to a psychiatrist at the Bremerton Naval Hospital.

My sessions consisted of one.  The first was an hour long evaluation by the reserve psychiatrist.  This included questions about my childhood and how I "felt about my parents and my relationship with them."  This line of questioning, I felt had no relevance on the issues I was faced with and trying to deal with.  I was told nothing about the evaluation other than to show up for the next appointment.  I did return for the next appointment.  Without seeing the psychiatrist, the receptionist handed over my records and a letter addressed to the ship's doctors recommending that I be immediately discharged from the Navy.  Diagnosis- personality disorder.

I had no therapeutic follow-up visits after the initial evaluation by the psychiatrist nor was I offered a choice to receive counseling.  It is my firm belief that I could have dealt with my "disorder" and that it would have benefited the Navy as well.  I was given expensive nuclear training and could have, with counseling, completed my military obligation.

To note, three other men (M_ S_, S_ A_, and an anonymous third) were also summarily dismissed.  Four out of the five psychiatric unit patients at Bremerton Naval Hospital at the time were from the Lincoln.  Investigation of the Lincoln was to be conducted.

After careful consideration of this letter, I respectfully ask for the approval of my appeal to upgrade my discharge to honorable as it would help out greatly in receiving benefits to help with the high costs of attending Idaho State University (ISU).  I am currently enrolled as a senior at the College of Technology in the practical nursing program.  I am planning on being accepted into the Bachelor of Science for Nursing (BSN) program next fall and will have two more years of college left to receive my BSN.  I now have three children and my wife to take care of and I am the only working about 15 hours a week as a waiter in a restaurant due to my school schedule.  My wife works about 25 hours a week and is also attending ISU.  We receive food stamps and Medicaid for our children's health insurance.  Upgrade of my discharge to honorable in order to receive the money that I paid into the G.I. bill and the funds that were matched would greatly improve my family's quality of life.

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	891025 - 900826	COG
	Active:   USN			900827 - 920827	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920828		Date of Discharge:  970714

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  10  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  81

Highest Rate:  MM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (3)	Behavior:  3.80 (3)		OTA:  3.87
Performance:  3.67 (3)	Behavior:  3.50 (4)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, SASM with a Bronze Star, SSDR, NDSM

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 3620225.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920828:	Reenlisted for term of 6 years.

940315:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Indecent exposure.
	Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to MM3.  Reduction suspended for 4 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970609:	Applicant diagnosed with personality disorder.  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.

970620:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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.

970620:	Applicant advised of 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.

970912:	Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970714 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).  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 Applicant was diagnosed with personality disorder on 970609 by a competent medical authority.  Because he was considered a risk to himself and others there was no inequity or impropriety in the fact that he was expeditiously processed for administrative separation.  There was no requirement to provide rehabilitative treatment so that he could continue his enlistment.  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.  While he may feel that his work environment on the USS Abraham Lincoln was a factor that contributed to his actions, 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 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 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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 1996 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER.

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