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

ex-BUCA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-01467

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030910.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE: 3.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  After a thorough review of the available 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.  “My discharge was inequitable because it all evolved around a doctor’s diagnosis from 1995.  Which was ADHD some how connects to the separation code on DD214 form.  So on this first issue I feel the board should look at all dates, ages and behaviors on the civilian medical record and compare it to the current evaluation done by Shelly’s to provide an answer to the fact that ADHD is outgrowable and is able to over come these downfalls in life providing an upgrade on my separation code.”  

2.  “After reviewing all provided evidence I would respectfully ask the board to consider a re-entry code upgrade to RE-3.

3.  “This all took place starting in 1994 and coming to a hault in or about 1997.  Its now 2003 leading to 2004.  I am an adult now with a wife and a daughter.  I have matured and now all I want in life is to serve my country and raise my family so in this matter I am respectfully requesting all item blocks fro re-entry ton my DD-214 form to be upgraded so I can finish my goal in life and that is to be someone and something.”

4.  “I make one last request that the board put into thought that this all came in to my life while I was young and pretty much dumb.  I didn’t know to much about life and now after getting married and having a daughter I grew up so much and I am basically a different person that I was three years ago.

Documentation

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

Copy of Applicant’s DD214
Copy of evaluation from T_ W_, MD, dtd 960624
Employee Evaluation from Shelly’s (5 pages)
Honor Student certificate, “A” school dtd 011220

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000803 - 010711	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010712		Date of Discharge:  020408

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  BUCA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  0.00 (1)	Behavior:  0.00 (1)		OTA:  0.00

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:

020202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle. Award: Forfeiture of $620 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction, susp for 6 mos.  No indication of appeal in the record. [extracted from retention warning of 020202]

020202:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violations of UCMJ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

020208:	SF 500E note [19 yo AD with cc of “I lied on my enlistment physical.  I didn’t tell them I had ADHD.”  Pt recently placed on 45 d restriction for episode of underage drinking and DWI (Jan 02) feels unhappy about being in Navy (7 mo) & wishes to get out.  States he hates his rate…. Admits to thinking about killing himself every other day, but doesn’t feel he’d go through with it.]

020226:	Medical officer statement [Applicant diagnosed with Adult Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Hyperactive Type.  The Mental Health Department recommends administrative separation for unsuitability in accordance wit reference MILPERSMAN 1910-120.  The Mental Health Department recommends an administrative separation on the basis of a medical condition not considered disabling.  This condition has interfered with the Marine’s ability to function effectively in the military environment and has led to impairment.  His prognosis based on available treatment was poor.  Per DoD Instruction 1332.28, the above-mentioned conditions do not constitute physical disabilities, and therefore may permit separation under the above reference.]

020312:	SF 600E note [CO has rejected recommendation for admin sep.  Discussed Dr. C.  She stated she would speak to her medial supervisor who would hopefully speak to the CO of the pt’s CO to persuade him to reconsider].

020323:	CO US NMCB-4 directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government.

Complete discharge package not contained in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020408 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).  In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the presumption that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 26 Feb 02.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  Relief denied.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A General discharge 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of the UCMJ to include violations of Article 111 for driving under the influence of alcohol and Article 92, failure to obey an order.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 2.  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.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

Issue 3.  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.  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 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.  At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

Issue 4.  The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his being "young and pretty much dumb."  While he may feel that his immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

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 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