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

 ex-RMSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-01332

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20020920, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030812.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was four to one that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable and my reenlistment code should be changed for re-entry into the military because of the following issues:  

1.  Under current standards, I would not receive the type of discharge I did.

2.  I received awards & decorations (National Defense Medal).  A92.04

3.  I received a Letter of Commendation  (Color Guard).  A92.06

4.  I have been a good citizen since my discharge.  A92.22

5.  My ability to serve was impaired because of family problems.  A93.08

Documentation

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

Applicant’s letter of Sep 6, 2002 to the Board explaining her situation (9 pages)
Copy of DD Form 214
American Red Cross ltr dtd Sep 29, 1995, to Applicant’s command
CO, NAVSUBSUPPFAC, New London memo of Sep 28, 1995 to Dr. T_
LT H_, Staff Chaplain, US NAVSUPPACT Naples, IL, memo of Sep 29, 1995 (Information and Recommendation ICO Applicant)
Applicant’s Spouse (B_ S. V_) undtd ltr to Dr. T_
Applicant’s Counseling Sheet from NCTAMS MED by MAC B_, USN
Naples Family Service Center, Case Summary dtd Sep 29, 1995
RMSR V_ (Applicant) undtd statement
Counseling information with RMSR (Applicant)  
Applicant’s undtd statement concerning mandatory counseling
Applicant’s Administrative Discharge Package (4 pages)
Applicant’s Military medical documentation (11 pages)
Applicant’s Military service record pages (10 pages)
Copy of Separation Regulation concerning Personality Disorder
Applicant’s Academic Transcript dtd Aug 16, 2002 (2 pages)
Newspaper article titled “Rudder Orders” Jan 1994 issue
Character Reference ltr from LT R_ W. W_, USN, dtd Aug 16, 2002
Character Reference ltr from T_ M. G_, Ph.D., Chair, Dept of Public Policy and Administration, National University, dtd Jul 12, 2001
Character Reference ltr from A_ D. L_ dtd Dec 8, 2001 (Notarized on Dec 8, 2001)
Character Reference undtd ltr from Applicant’s Spouse (B_ S_ V_) 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950124 - 950226	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950227		Date of Discharge:  960112

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  RMSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.0

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  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 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950310:	Last name change notification from F_ to V_ due to marriage.

951005:	Record of Counseling by LT T. S_, JR:  Counseled Applicant on benefits of staying in the Navy, requesting a documented humanitarian transfer.  Applicant not receptive to the idea of staying in the Navy, recommend command consult with attending doctor.  Applicant provided a statement indicating that she needs separation from the military so “I can concentrate my time and efforts on my family problems.”

951005:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (poor work performance as well as not keeping the chain of command advised of whereabouts), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

951010:	Head, Mental Health Dept advises command (U.S. Naval Computer and Telecommunications, Area Master Station, Med) Applicant has been evaluated as an outpatient at U.S. Naval Hospital, Naples, Italy on 3 Oct 95 and was given Diagnoses of Complicated Bereavement and Dependent Personality Disorder.  She shows an inability to adapt to a series of life circumstance problems in the context of overseas duty.  She shows poor motivation for future duty and is not motivated to work with the limited mental health resources available at U.S. Naval Hospital Naples in order to be retained.  Due to the poor prognostic outcome of retention in the Navy of this case, the command is highly recommended to exercise Administrative Separation via OPNAVINST 1910.1D for a Personality Disorder Diagnosis.  Since the command had properly counseled the member with page 13 References, it can proceed with Administrative action, which is most advisable to be effected expeditiously in this case.

951019:	Record of Counseling by MAC _ W. B_:  Advised of deficiency (failed to muster at 0704, 19 Oct 95 but called in at 0745 indicated she
 had missed her bus, again failed to muster on 19 Oct 95 and there were no phone calls as to her whereabouts.  About 0905, 19 Oct 95, 2 hrs 5 mins later she showed up), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

951024:	Record of Counseling by MAC _ W. B_:  Advised of deficiency: tardiness having failed again to muster on 23 and 24 Oct 95.  At 0700, at 0824, 23 Oct 95, she called in concerning Dental appointments at 0930 and 1030.  The chain of command wasn’t given prior notice of these appointments and she also failed to return to work at the completion of those appointments or let the chain of command know of her whereabouts.  Failed to report to work on 24 Oct 95 (UA) or ever call to let people know her whereabouts.  Notified of corrective actions and assistance available.  Applicant provided a statement concerning the counseling sessions.

951025:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by an evaluation from competent medical authorities.

951025:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.  Applicant did not object to this separation.

951109:	Naval Hospital, Naples:  This is a 23 year old, married Caucasian female, with seven months of active service stationed at NCTAMS in Naples, since September 95 with multiple life stressors including the recent death of her brother to AIDS, a brother’s suicide threat, mother’s recent diagnosis of depression and need for medications, an unexpected and unplanned separation from her husband who is also on active duty stationed in Groton, CT.  Pt reported significant frustration and anger at overseas assignment after an attempt to be stationed together with her husband, feeling that since their marriage in July 1995, they have been “unsupported and lied to.”  She had reported no desire to stay within the military since transferred to Naples and has had multiple counseling chits including page 13’s resulting in Command’s decision to recommend administrative separation for personality disorder.  She was initially evaluated in the Mental Health Unit in Naples on 03 Oct and given a diagnosis of dependent personality disorder and complicated bereavement.  Since then, she has been supported as an outpatient in the Mental Health unit awaiting admin separation, however has shown increasing distress over the “long wait.”  Pt reports no alcohol abuse or recent drug abuse.  Pt reports no symptoms consistent with mania, or psychosis.
MENTAL STATUS EXAM:  Revealed a cooperative Caucasian female with tearful affect, at times labile.  Pt’s mood was “anxious and angry.”  Pt reported no suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation.  Content centered on a strong desire to return home to support her family and to be close to her husband.  There is no evidence of hallucinations or delusions.  She was alert and oriented to person, place, and time.  Memory and concentration were intact to gross testing.  Judgment and insight were considered fair.
TREATMENT COURSE:  Pt was followed primarily as an outpatient in Mental Health unit at Naval Hospital Napes where she received supportive psychotherapy.  Despite being given counseling by her command and supportive therapy at MHU, Pt began to show significant anxiety and frustration over the time table to await for admin processing.  Pt denies suicidal ideation and contracted for safety during entire treatment claiming “I would never hurt myself and I never said that I was suicidal.”  Pt required no medication.  Pt’s CO had agreed with admin separation and due to significant anxiety and inability to cope in outpatient setting while awaiting admin sep, Dept of Psychiatry is recommending MedEvac to an IN-CONUS site, close to her husband’s duty station in Groton, CT.  Pt does have significant grief issues, but at this time, is primarily focused on legal and admin problems and is unable to receive the limited psychotherapy that is available in the Naples area.  Pt is recommended for ongoing psychological support upon return to an IN-CONUS site for a complicated bereavement and adjustment problem.  Pt does face admin sep as a result of a Command decision and awaits processing.  
DISHCARGE DIAGNOSES:  AXIS I:  (1) Complicated bereavement.
(2) Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features.
AXIS II:  Dependent Personality Disorder.
CONDITION ON DISCHARGE:  Pt is considered responsible for her actions legally and is to be held accountable.  Pt is considered competent to handle her financial affairs at this time.  Pt is considered low risk for self harm at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:  Pt is recommended for MedEvac to an IN-CONUS facility as an outpatient where she is to receive supportive psychotherapy…  Pt is recommended to not return to an overseas billet and is considered unsuitable for future service at this time.  Pt is recommended to be followed in outpatient MHU at Groton and accepting M.D. for MedEvac is Dr. K_.
DISCHARGE DISPOSITION:  Unsuitable for future service with arranged MedEvac.

951109:	Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station, Med, advised CHNAV PERS that Applicant’s discharge was approved for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to convenience of the government by reason of personality disorder.

951113:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by an evaluation from competent medical authorities.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  “Based on the medical evaluation, and due to RMSR V_’s (Applicant) continued poor performance and conduct, she is not suitable for further military service.  She has been extensively counseled both within her chain of command and by external experts.  The XO, CMC and I have devoted numerous hours and several angles to get her squared away.  For the first time in my 23 year career, this young, immature and illogical sailor has to go!  I recommend that she be separated from the naval service and given a General discharge.”
	LATE NOTE handwritten on ltr states:  “Per Ref B (Phoncon NAVHOSP Naples Dr. T_/NCTAMS MED Capt M_ of 3 Nov 95) – Competent medical authority – BMSR V_ (Applicant) will be medevac’d to CONUS ASAP (Prob 9 Nov).  She will not return to NCTAMS.  Med await her departure to CONUS.  While she is not suicidal, she is shattered!  Pls expedite her discharge from our Navy!”

960112:	Applicant discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the Government due to personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960112 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  The Board found nothing to support the Applicant’s assertion that under today’s standards she would have received a more favorable discharge.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s documented personality disorder and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to her characterization of service.  The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

Issues 2 and 3.  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 adverse counseling entries on four occasions.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 4.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her 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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any 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, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documents that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the circumstances for which she was discharged.  Relief denied.

Issue 5.  The Board found that the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  While she may feel that her family problems contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief 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.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 23 Jun 96, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS OF PERSONALITY DISORDER.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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