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

 ex-OSSN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00349

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20021227.  The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to [left blank].  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant list the Mass Veterans Service as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031205.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change and unanimous that the narrative reason for the discharge will remain the same.  The discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“See Doc 1, Personal statement

The veteran in no way had a personality disorder.  Seeking professional help that is made available to individuals should not result in any detrimental action.

The Navy was in error in issueing a general discharge all service was honorable within regulations, and performance superior.

Document 1 personal statement additional issue

I believe I was wrongfully discharged from the Navy. This is my narrative of the events that led to that action. To the best of my knowledge, all statements herein are true.

In early October of 1990, I was an OSSN aboard the U.S.S. Rentz(FFG-46), recently returned from deployment to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Desert Storm. Feeling depressed, I aproached the ship’s doctor for advice. After talking with him, and not feeling any solution there, I decided to go and speak to the base chaplain. After speaking with him, I followed (what I recall as) his suggestion to go and seek the services of Fleet Mental Health there at the base. I made an appointment for Oct 2 in the morning, at which time they administered the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), and a few other tests such as Rorchach and had me scetch my home and some people. We broke for lunch, and when I returned, I was told that I had been designated a Schitzophrenic, paranoid type, and recommended for separation. This label came as quite a shock to me, as that my limited understanding of mental illness made that designation very distastful to me. Furthermore, the fact that I had gone to seek help for simple depression, and had now been basically told that I was to be kicked out because I was crazy, only made the origional depression worse. Perhaps the worst part in all of this is that at no time do I recall actually being offered any help with dealing with the origional issue of depression or the resultant confusion of the news of my separation and it’s reasons.

In the 19 days that followed, leading up to my actual separation, I had to endure the curious (and not always kind) questions of my shipmates, as to theconditions of my pending separation. Also during this time, I had to sign a number of papers in processing for separation. Again, at no time do I recall being offered any help in dealing with what was now depression, confusion, and self-doubt, let alone help really understanding the full impact of all these papers I was being told to sign. It was all very intimidating. A particularly traumatizing situation occurred when I was notified that I was considered not in proper health for a 5 day deployment, and told to pack my things and stay on shore. After I had packed and was headed off the ship, I checked with the MAA on the Quarterdeck to alert him of my departure. At that point I was told to wait, and (the final result was) put my things away as that I was in fact going to have to go out to sea with the ship. At this point, I was very confused and very depressed. Soon after our return to San Diego, My final papers came through and I was separated.

I have to say here that in the beginning of my enlistment I had seriously considered making a career out of the Navy. I enjoyed many aspects of being a sailor. To say that these experiences leading to my separation soured those thoughts would be a gross understatment. I had thought that I was part of a great tradition, a “team”, but was left feeling betrayed and hung out to dry by the very people I was supposed to trust.

J_ S_ G_
6/26/02”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as claimant’s representative, dated June 26, 2002 (2)
Enlisted Performance Record (2)
Letter of Commendation (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900329 - 900701	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900702		Date of Discharge:  911021

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  OSSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (1)	Behavior:  3.80 (1)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

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

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

911001:	Applicant diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder with paranoid features and borderline features, severe.  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.

911007:	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 as evidenced by medical officer evaluation.

911016:	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.

911016:	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 19911021 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 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 but not equitable (D and E).

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that a personality disorder was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why he was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  However, the Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been “type warranted by service record.”  A review of the Applicant’s records indicated an honorable discharge was warranted.  There was no adverse information that would have warranted a less favorable characterization.  Therefore, partial relief is granted.

Since partial relief was granted, 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 refute the diagnosis of personality disorder 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), effective 15 Aug 1991 until 04 Mar 1993, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 1991 until 04 Mar 1993, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - 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