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

  ex-FT3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00311

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20021211.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant listed Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031121.  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 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 stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant. 

Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS): 

“1. Equity regarding the character of Discharge.
The applicant’s contention as set forth on DD 293 reveals that he suffer from Major Depression/PTSD.  He states he was sexually assaulted while in the military, and as a result he was unable to deal w/the U.S. Military.  The evidence of record will show extensive Psychiatric Reports coupled w/other supportive evidence outlining his mental condition.  Therefore it is strongly requested that the board consider all of the evidence of record as presented herein and resolve any an all doubt in favor of the Applicant toward the grant of the benefit sought.  If the DRB can not resolve in favor of Applicant because he should receive a medial discharge, please refer to BCNR’S for decision.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant
Transcript from Anne Arundel Community College
Airline Reservations (2 pages)
Psychiatric Evaluation (2 pages)
Social Work Progress Note
Letter of Complaint from Applicant against CDR H__ dated April 17, 2001 (3 pages)
Letter from Applicant regarding Manning Issue dated February 14, 2001
Special Request/Authorization Chit
Limited Duty Billet Placement Letter from Clinical Psychologist dated February 15, 2001 (2)
Email dated April 18, 2001 
Thank You Letter from Applicant to L_ O. S_ dated November 7, 2002
Limited Power of Attorney Letter from Applicant dated November 7, 2003
Letter from Disabled American Veterans 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970307 - 970608	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970609		Date of Discharge:  010815

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  86

Highest Rate:  FT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (4)	Behavior:  2.00 (4)		OTA:  2.21

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:

010720:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that the Applicant’s manifests a longstanding disorder of character, behavior and adaptability that is of such severity to preclude adequate military service.  He represents a significant danger of harm to self and others if retained on active service due to his lifelong pattern of maladaptive responses to routine personal and/or work related stresses.

	AXIS I: Alcohol Abuse
	
	AXIS II: Personality disorder not otherwise specified with, schizoid, avoidant, narcissistic and antisocial traits.

	AXIS III: No diagnosis

	AXIS IV: Occupational problems.

	AXIS V: GAF 50, past year 60  

010725:	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 of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation.

010725:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to submit statements for consideration by Separation Authority and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

010803:	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 of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [FT3 L_ was initially evaluated in Hawaii 3 years ago and recommended for administrative separation.  He requested mast and was eventually given an opportunity to redeem himself.  He was thereafter assigned to the USS FRANK CABLE, a sub tender home ported in Guam.  While there he had several episodes of minor misconduct and was eventually admitted to Naval Hospital Guam after he pulled a knife out of his pocket and placed it on the desk of the Commanding Officer during mast proceedings.  He was placed on limited duty and medevac’d to Naval Medical Center San Diego (NMCSD).  He was assigned to the Naval Station, San Diego (NAVSTA) Master-at-Arms force and continued to display evidence of misconduct by failing room inspection, disobeying orders, gun-decking vehicle inspection, etc.  See enclosure (3) through (8).  He continued to display such odd behavior that it was felt that he might have a psychotic disorder, so he was placed TAD to the NMCSD Med Hold Company for further testing and more intensive treatment.  Testing revealed a personality disorder and other profiles consistent with possible history of psychological trauma.  He was allowed to remain in Med Hold, but continued to display a consistent pattern of disruptive behavior.  He was counseled on this; however, his behavior worsened to the point that it was severely affecting the well being of other patients.  FT3 L_ has continued to display disruptive behavior by using profanity after being counseled not to, making lewd and obscene gestures, and generally making himself a nuisance in what is supposed to be a therapeutic group situation.  FT3 L_ has behaved in a grossly inappropriate manner by “hitting” on another Sailor, implying to others that they were gay lovers and once even sat down in his lap and was seen grinding his hips into the other Sailor in a sexually suggestive manner.  In addition, he apparently returned 2 days late from leave with forged documents alleging that airline problems has caused his delay.  Based on the above information and enclosure (2), FT3 L_ is deemed unsuitable for continued military service.  He has consistently demonstrated a profound inability to comply with the basic standards of personal conduct and will require extraordinary efforts on the part of his supervisors to manage his behavior and elicit even marginal performance in even the most basic work setting.  Such actions are intolerable and are not in keeping with the good order and discipline expected of our sailors.  He has proven that he has no further potential for future Naval Service.  Based on the above information, I strongly recommend that FT3 L_ be separated from the Naval Service with a characterization of a General Discharge by reason of Convenience of the Government due to personality disorder.]

010806:	Commander, Navy Region, Southwest authorized Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) 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 20010815 with a 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).

Issue 1:  A characterization of service of general (under honorable) conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a departure from that expected of a Sailor.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While he may feel that his sexual assault was a contributing factor, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s frequent misbehavior.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his 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.
  
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, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   The Board appreciates the Applicant’s efforts to improve his life and encourages him to continue.  However, at this time the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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 33, effective 
14 Aug 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, 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