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

 ex-EN3, USNR(TAR)
Docket No. ND03-00363

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received 20021227.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed the American Legion 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, 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

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“MY DISCHARGE WAS AN INJUSTICE BASED ON A CHAIN OF EVENTS.

(1) REPEATED CANCELATION OF MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS BY MY COMMANDER.
(2) MY GOING TO CHIEF’S MAST, XOI’S MAST AND CAPTAIN’S MAST FOR MISSING SHIPS MOVEMENT WHILE UNDER MEDICAL CARE& ORDERS.
(3) DENYING ME MY RIGHT TO COUNCEL WHILE AT AND AFTER CAPTAIN’S MAST.
(4) DIAGNOSING ME WITH PERSONALITY DISORDER,STATING THAT I HAD SUICIDAL IDEATIONS AND WAS A THREAT TO OTHERS.
(5) MISLEADING ME ABOUT MY EDU CATIONAL BENEFITS IF I WAS DISCHARGED.
(6) BEING ORDERED TO SIGN MY DISCHARGE WILE UNDER DURESS, THREATENING ME WITH ANOTHER CAPTINS MAST IF I REFUSED.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion):

“7.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter to Commanding Officer from Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA, dated December 3, 1998
Letter from Office of the Chaplain, dated December 4, 1998
Character reference, undated
Letter from Applicant, dated October 7, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950831		Date of Discharge:  981216

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  20
	Inactive:  00  02  25

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  EN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM, NDSM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in the service record.

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:

961029:	Commanding Officer recommended retention and issue a page 13 warning for failing to fully disclose past criminal activity.

981105:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer on 981020, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on 981020, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship’s movement on 981020.  No further information found.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 981220.]

981105:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (UA, late in mustering), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

981130:	Applicant diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.  The psychiatrist recommended expeditious administrative 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.

981215:	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 of 30 November 1998.

981215:	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 and to submit a statement.

981220:	Commanding Officer recommended 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 19981216 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).

Issues 1-6.  The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, after a review of the service record and documentation provided by the Applicant, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 19981130.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  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 the Applicant may feel that he was unfairly charged, 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.     Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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.  

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.

Issue 7.  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.  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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found insufficient to warrant relief.  Relief is therefore denied.

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 21, effective 
01 Sep 1998 until 19 May 99, 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