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

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01021

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Miami, Florida.  The Applicant listed Monroe County Vet Affairs as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  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 030410.  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 entered the US Navy on 6/26/96 and was discharged on 1/21/97 with a character of service of general (under honorable conditions).  I am filing this DD Form 293 to request that my character of service be upgraded to honorable and that my reentry code be changed to RE-R1 to permit me to re-enlist in the US Navy.  As noted above, I have included supporting documents to reflect that I have no warrants/arrests and that I have been doing something meaningful with my life since I was discharged.  After serving only six months and 26 days in the US Navy, I was discharged for a personality disorder.  Although I do admit that I was a young and immature lady (only 18 years old) at the time of my enlistment, there were other extenuating circumstances that led to my separation.  I DID NOT want to separate from the US Navy but I felt that I had no other choice at that time. I completed basic training and was scheduled to go to A School.  I did not want to go into this specialty as I did not feel that I had the aptitude for it; however I did not know how to change schools.  There was also an incident when my family came to visit me for Pass and Review and there was confusion as to whether or not my biological father was there.  I had no knowledge of their visit and had watch both days.  I was also placed on legal hold pending an administrative discharge.  I was also referred to Mental Health for evaluation.  I did complain that I did not feel very confident about being in the Navy and that I had mood swings and lack of concentration.  I do feel that my lack of confidence and mood swings were due to the fact that I was so young and was going through a confusing situation.  I also realize that I should not have waived my rights to counsel but instead should have sought help to work through these issues and remain in the US Navy.  I did feel intimidated by it all and the easiest path at the time seemed to be to "get out of the Navy." With respect to my past prior to entering the US Navy, I did have it rough growing up.  It was not the best environment for a child to be exposed to during the developmental years.  I won't belabor the past with you.  I would like to concentrate on the present and how my life has changed for the positive.  I am now gainfully employed and have included a letter from my employer.  I am also taking college courses to "better" myself and have included letters from two college professors as well.  I feel that I am a confident and poised lady and do not suffer from a personality disorder or any other mental health problems.  I realize that I cannot go back and change the past but I do know that I can change my future.  I would like to make a career in the US Navy a part of my future.

I am willing to appear before a traveling panel closest to where I reside to assess my request for this upgrade.  I would also be willing to submit to a mental health evaluation if you deem that necessary.

In closing, I would say that the main issue with respect to upgrading my discharge and reentry code is that even though I waived my rights to legal counsel, I feel that I should have been provided legal/career counseling to try to help me to work through the issues and to remain in the US Navy.

Once again, I cannot tell you how much it means to me to have the opportunity to serve my Country and to pursue a career in the United States Navy.  Thank you in advance for your consideration of my request.

[Statement from counsel]
2.  To Whom It May Concern;

I am writing this letter on behalf of Ms. [Applicant], SSN [number deleted], in support of her DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

I have known Ms. [Applicant] for the past four years and have assisted her in my capacity as a Veterans Services Officer.  I have reviewed her military records, to include her service medical records, and feel that at the time of her enlistment that she was a young, immature girl who had a number of frustrating experiences while in the US Navy that led her to making a bad decision on waiving her rights to counsel and getting out of the Navy.  She was young and impressionable, I feel that she sought the path of least resistance and opted to accept an administrative discharge.  I do, however, feel that since Ms. [Applicant] had completed basic training that she should have been greatly encouraged and provided with legal and career counseling on such an important decision.

During the time that I have known Ms. [Applicant], I have found her to be very intelligent, motivated, personable, and goal directed.  Since her discharge from the Navy, she has not been in any trouble and has enrolled in courses at Florida Keys Community College to improve herself.  She is currently employed in Jewelry Sales and is doing very well.  I have found her to be a person who is very loyal to her Country and professional in all respect& As a retired Air Force Major and health services administrator, I do not feel that she exhibits any symptoms of a personality disorder at this time.

Although Ms [Applicant] did make some mistakes in the past and did indeed have a very difficult childhood, I feel that she has come a long way and would be an asset to the United States Navy and her Country at this point in her life.  Therefore, I would highly recommend that you upgrade Ms [Applicant]'s character of service to honorable and change her reentry code to RE-RI to permit her the opportunity to reenlist in the US Navy and serve her Country.  Ms. [Applicant] has an avid desire to reenlist in the Navy and should be afforded that opportunity.

If you have any questions concerning my support for Ms. [Applicant], please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone number deleted].

Sincerely, [Applicant's counsel]

Documentation

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

Police record check June 26, 2002
Character reference dated June 30, 2002
Character reference dated June 18, 2002
Character reference dated June 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960426 - 960625	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960626		Date of Discharge:  970121

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  06  26
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  46

Highest Rate:  FR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  7 (961031-961106)

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:

961121:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700 on 961031 to 0700 on 961107 (6 days/surrendered).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $198 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 7 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961121:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (poor military performance, to wit: unauthorized absence).  Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

961125:	Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL:  Staff Psychiatrist Evaluation: diagnosed with Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depression and chronic mild confusion; Axis II: Personality Disorder, passive/aggressive, severe; Axis III: Possible cognitive sequence of past alcohol abuse; Axis IV: Normal Stressors of life and lack of familiarity with a motion of commitment; Axis V: Global assessment of function score 41.  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; noted Applicant's inability to adapt to either the demands of living with others or the everyday stressors of military active duty.  Applicant was considered a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

970117:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 90 (2 Specs): Willfully disobeying an order received from her superior commissioned officer (LTJG) to report to the barracks office, (2) Willfully disobeying a lawful command given by superior officer to wear proper earrings on 970116.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961205:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) 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 as evidenced by her chronological record of medical care.

961205:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for  separation.

961213:	Commanding Officer, Schools Command, Great Lakes, reported to COM-NAVPERSCOM the Applicant's intended discharge on 970121 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) 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 comments: "Based upon a thorough review of [Applicant]'s chronological evaluation her personality disorder has significantly impaired her ability to adjust to the military environment.  [Applicant]'s personality disorder has resulted in poor impulse control, passive-aggressive and immature features."
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
 REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970121 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).

The Applicant, with counsel, contends that aspects of her post-service conduct, to include steady employment, continued college education, and non-involvement with civil authorities, should be considered in the recharacterization of her discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge even though there is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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 may be considered.  Verifiable proof of 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 documents that may be provided to the Board to receive consideration of relief based on post-service conduct.  The Board reviewed the character references and the police records check that the Applicant submitted, and does recognize the positive steps the Applicant has made since being separated from service.  However, the Board did not deem the documentation sufficient to consider an upgrade to the Applicant's characterization of service based on post-service factors.  Relief based on post-service is therefore denied.

The Applicant, with counsel, further contends that her ignorance of life as a young Sailor precluded her from making mature decisions and that this fact should be considered in the recharacterization of her discharge.  The Board found that the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  While she may feel that her immaturity was a factor that contributed to her conditions, the record clearly reflects her disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was not suited for further service.  In spite of the Medical Officer evaluation of 961125, the Applicant's misconduct formed the basis of her characterization of service.  Relief on this basis is denied.

Further, the Applicant, with counsel, contends that she should have been provided with legal and career counseling to help her with the problems that she was experiencing as well as with her separation process.  The records the Board reviewed showed that the Applicant, upon notification of intended recommendation to separate her from the military service, was advised of her rights.  Among these was the right to consult with counsel certified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ or with qualified civilian counsel.  The Applicant was made aware of these rights on 961205 and elected to waive them.  With respect to career counseling, the Applicant was found, by both medical and command authorities, to be incapable of serving adequately in the naval service and was subsequently processed for administrative discharge.  Career counseling in this situation was not required and would not have provided any benefit to the Applicant.  The Applicant did, however, obtain counseling from her command Chaplain who then referred her to mental health personnel for help.  Subsequent evaluation found that the Applicant's condition was not amenable to effective treatment in the military setting.  The Applicant was provided with appropriate medical counsel as well as with the opportunity to obtain legal counsel.  Relief on this basis is therefore denied.

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 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