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

 ex-GM2(SW), USN 
Docket No. ND03-00710

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030320.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128.  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:

 “1. Proper procedures requesting a Mental Health Examination were not followed. I did not receive a letter from my Commanding Officer for a referral nor did I receive a memorandum citing reasons for non-compliance with the rights and procedures listed in MILPERSMAN 1910-122.”

2. I also was not informed of my rights, per MILPERSMAN 1910-122 nor a letter stating reasons for non-compliance.

3. I did not sign/receive an Endorsement to above mentioned referral letter.

4. The Diagnosis of Personality Disorder was made when characteristic features were limited to a discrete episode with the onset in November and Diagnosis during the same episode of disassociation in January 2002, a two month episode.

5. General (under honorable conditions) awarded despite 3.5 years of good conduct as evidenced by Service Record and Evaluation reports prior to separation.

6. General (under honorable conditions) awarded despite complete lack of Non-Judicial Punishments or Captain’s Masts.

7. Repeatedly, during my enlistment I requested help with depression. ~1~reatment would likely have been able to prevent the onset of any disorders.”

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

8. “Equity regarding the character of Discharge.”

9. “Upgrading the Discharge based on Equity and Good conscience.”

10. “After reviewing the Applicant’s record, Counsel is of the opinion that this case in inequitable, and request for an upgrade is in order. 11 is important that the Board consider the attenuating and mitigating circumstances surrounding this ease based on the Improprieties as stated on the DD Form 293. It is requested the Board take jurisdiction on this case and evaluate all medical records coupled with service records and all lay statements to render a fair and equitable decision.  Certainly we request that where reasonable doubt should arise with respect to this petition that all such doubt he resolved in favor of the Applicant.”

Documentation

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

Two Gunner’s Mate Exam Profiles
Five USN Evaluation Reports
Seven pages from Applicant’s Medical Record
Two pages from Applicant’s Service Record
Email copy dated 7 November, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980407 - 980608	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980609		Date of Discharge:  020325

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  GM2(SW)

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.75 (4)	Behavior:  3.25 (4)		OTA:  3.26

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, AFEM, SSDR (2), BER (3), NMCAM

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:

020115:	Referred to psychiatrist on USS Peleliu due to an overdose on Motrin and Naprosyn on 020114.  Applicant diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and a personality disorder, not otherwise specified with borderline and narcissistic traits.  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.

020214:	Evaluated by Clinical Psychology Intern at Fleet MHU, San Diego.  No change to assessment conducted on 020115.

020322:	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 psychiatric evaluation of 020115 and 020214.

020322:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to submit a statement and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020322:	USS Comstock directed discharge 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.  Applicant has had mixed performance.  She has repeatedly been counseled for misconduct in performance, resulting in two XOIs.  At the time of her medical evaluation, charges were pending from two separate disciplinary issues.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020325 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 1-3.  The Applicant’s claim that she was not properly notified of pending mental health evaluations and afforded the corresponding due rights does not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The Board considers the Applicant’s referral on 20020115 to bean emergency referral, therefore there was no requirement in this instance to afford the Applicant notification prior to the referral.  Relief on these issues is therefore denied.

Issues 4 and 7.  The Board found that the Applicant was properly diagnosed to possess a personality disorder.  The Applicant was seen by properly credentialed Fleet Mental Health personnel from October 2001 to March 2002.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s diagnosis and alleged incorrect treatment to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to her characterization of service.  A psychiatrist concluded that the Applicant was a risk to herself as long as she was retained on active duty.  The Board found that this clearly was not a discrete episode.  Relief denied.

Issues 5-6, 8-10.  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 two Executive Officer Inquiries and documented poor performance of duty noted in the Applicant’s final Evaluation Report and in the Commanding Officer’s letter directing administrative separation.  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 is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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 occurred 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.  Relief not warranted.

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.  Relief denied.

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