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

 
ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND03-01174

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030626.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040514.  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 3620225.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.  Because of my discharge being other than honorable I find it difficult to pursue a normal lively hood.  I can no longer pursue and utilize benefits due to me for time served.  Throughout my tour of duty I received many letters of appreciation.  I got along well with just about everyone I encountered.  Speaking of the time in question I was going through a tough divorce.  Losing my wife was a slap in the face along with trying to adjust to taking on a new duty from working in Naval Hospital Orlando to Fleet Marine Service Supply.  I was young and taking in a lot.  I found it hard to cope with the divorce while still being able to perform my duties.  I took in appointments with the Company Chaplain.  I still could not see past my troubles.  I took it upon myself to see a military psychologist as well as appointments with the family advocacy.  I still could not handle what was happening to me, but now 7 years out of the service I have been able to pick up the pieces and pursue a normal but incomplete life.  I now have a beautiful family.  I have found and maintained a job with G.E./Unison Industries where I am employed as a industrial mechanic.  I stay busy by doing landscape work on the weekends and I am attending college to better educate myself and be an asset to my present employer.  As stated early I respectfully request that my discharge be upgraded to honorable so I can provided a home for my family using the VA loan.  I realize my actions were immature and if I could go back I would have fought to stay in the service.”

2.  “My DD-214 states that I did not contribute to the G.I. Bill.  I contributed the required amount per month for what I thought was a valuable benefit to my future. Because of an isolated incident I find it unfair that my benefit be withheld, I would like to continue my life as a proud veteran.  As stated in my initial application I have maintained steady employment, attending college, proud member of a local church.  The proof is in my service record documented on my LES showing that I contributed to the Montgomery G.I. Bill.  To whom it may concern I respectfully pray and hope that you will consider my request to proceed with a normal life by upgrading my discharge from under honorable conditions to honorable”

3.  “I received letters of commendation; There were other acts of Merit; I was close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge; I have been a good citizen since discharge; My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity; My ability to serve was impaired because of marital and family problems; I tried to serve and wanted to, but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to; I had applied or tried to apply for a hardship discharge but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.” 

Documentation

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

Statement of Material Contentions

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911119 - 920809	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920810		Date of Discharge:  961018

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (7 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (5)	Behavior:  3.52 (5)		OTA:  3.69

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, NDSN, 9MM Pistol Ribbon

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 3620225.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940212:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly conduct; violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Violation of a lawful order.
	
960725:	Psychologically Evaluation: Applicant diagnosed with Occupational Problems, Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Borderline and Dependent Features.  The psychiatrist advised expeditious administrative separation.  The member is not considered mentally ill and returns to full duty.  This individual does manifest a longstanding disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to interfere with his serving adequately in the Navy.  Although no imminently suicidal or homicidal, he is a continuing risk to do harm to himself or others.  Expeditious administrative separation in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN 3620225, NAVMILPERSCOM INST 1910.D, and NAVOP 013/87 is strongly recommended.  In the examiner’s opinion, the patient does not possess a severe mental disease or defect for purpose of R.C.M. 706 examination and is considered competent.

960830:	Leading Chief Petty Officer recommended Applicant discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity that his ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. 

960909:	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 your recent medical diagnosis made by a competent military medical authority which concludes that your disorder is so severity that your ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.

960911:	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.

960925:	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.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19961018 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).

Issues 1-2.   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 applicant does not deny that he was suffering from a personality disorder at the time of his discharge from naval service.  He was diagnosed by qualified medical officers as possessing a long-standing disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy.  He was considered a continuing risk to do harm to himself or others.

Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) 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 the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  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. 

Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural error or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no such errors after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 naval service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, can be considered.  In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief is appropriate.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 14, effective 
03 Oct 1996 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER.

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