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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00280

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031201.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040818.  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: UNCHARACTERIZED (Entry Level Separation)/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.  In May of 1998, approximately half way into my seven-month Delayed Entry Program (DEP), two of my grandparents were diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. My grandfather, R_ M_ Jr, was stricken with a severe case of cancer and had multiple strokes.  On top of this, approximately a month later, in June of 1998, my grandmother, M_ F_ was diagnosed with a very severe case of cancer, both were not given more than a year to live.  They actually did not live that long, both dying within four months of my discharge and return home.  While I was in (DEP) the time I first found out about the two illnesses within my family, I was seventeen years old finishing up high school.  These illnesses that confronted my family members really made me think about the career field I was about to enter into and the lack of time I would have to spend with them during their final months of life.  After much thought, I along with my father, decided to talk to my NAVY recruiter, D_ P_ of the Wichita Falls, Texas NAVY Recruitment Office, about my situation and the possibility of getting out of the NAVY or the possibility of entering into boot camp at a later date.  I told P_, I really did not feel comfortable entering into the NAVY at that time in my life because of the illnesses that had entered my family within the time I was in (DEP).”  I went on to ask P_, “Is there anyway I can get out of the NAVY because of the circumstances I face?  Although P_ never stated I would receive a dishonorable discharge, he did make it clear that I had made a binding agreement with the Department of Defense and it was not possible for me to get out of the Navy, even under my circumstances.  I went on to ask P_, “Is there anyway I could enter boot camp at a later date?” His reply was, “NO.” I believe that my entry level discharge was improper, because my recruiter D_ P_ knew the seriousness of illnesses that my family member were facing and the stress that it was causing me at that time in my life.  I believe P_, knowing that I was going through these difficult times in my life, could and should have done more to prevent me from entering into a even more stressful environment such as the military life.  I believe my recruiter, D_ P_, should never have allowed me to enter into the NAVY under my circumstances, and I believe the proper discharge I should receive is General (under honorable conditions).”

“2.  My second issue stems from the first.  I have a good friend, K_ M_, who was sworn into the NAVY while I was in (DEP).  While he was in (DEP), a family situation arose and he voiced his concerns to his recruiter, D_ P_, about not wanting to enter into the NAVY at all.  P_ told him the same as me that “he could not get out of the NAVY.”  When the time came to depart to boot camp, Mr. M_ failed show up for his ride to Great Lakes, Illinois to report to the NAVY Training Center.  Mr. M_ and I were both faced with similar situations; he chose to go against what Recruiter P_ said and received no kind of discharge, even later being able to enlist in the ARMY, in which he is now serving in the 17th Engineer Battalion in Bamberg, Germany.  As for myself, I felt forced to do what P_ Said and thought it was the honorable thing to do, to respect what he told me I could and could not do and in the end coming out with a discharge that in Naval terms is not dishonorable, but is also not specifically honorable either.  Judging from Mr. M_s’ situation that all I had to do was not show up to leave for boot camp and I would not have received any kind of discharge whatsoever, I believe my entry-level separation from the NAVY was inequitable.  I would be very thankful if you would upgrade my discharge status to General (under honorable conditions).” 

Documentation

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

Statement in Support of Claim dated October 20, 2003
Statement in Support of Claim dated October 14, 2003
Statement in Support of Claim dated October 4, 2003
Grandparents Obituary (2)
Notification Procedure Letter dated August 27, 1998
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Bachelor of Arts Degree
Transcript from Vernon College (2 pages)
Transcript from Hardin-Simmons University (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	971213 - 980802	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980803		Date of Discharge:  980902

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  64

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  None		Behavior:  None		OTA:  None

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980815:	History of Present Illness:  Applicant superficially scratched his left wrist to get out of the Navy.  Applicant was seen in the Emergency Room on 15 August 1998, and admitted to the Inpatient Psychiatric Unit for further evaluation and treatment.  Upon psychiatric evaluation, the Applicant appeared to be an insincere, immature young male who clutched his Bible dramatically stating that he is missing his mother, father and his grandparents who are dying of cancer in Texas.  Although they have been dying of cancer for sometime he nevertheless joined the Navy for education.
 
980815:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that although this individual is probably exaggerating if not malingering his symptoms it is strongly recommended that he be expeditiously separated by way of Entry Level Separation because of his marked immaturity and self-destructive behavior.  Should he not be separated he will, more likely that not, continue to act in a self-destructive manner until he seriously harms himself or is separated from the Navy.

	Initial Impression:

AXIS I: Malingering provisional adjustment disorder with depressed mood
	
	AXIS II: Personality Disorder, not identified although suspected

	AXIS III: None

	AXIS IV: Stressors related to routine duties

	AXIS V: Global Assessment of functioning: 65

980827:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction into the naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an adjustment/personality disorder.

980827:	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.

980828:	Commanding Officer directed Applicant’s uncharacterized discharge by reason of defective enlistment and induction into the naval service due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by an adjustment/personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980902 with an uncharacterized (entry level separation) discharge 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).

Issue 1 and 2.  The Applicant’s statements concerning unfair treatment by his recruiter do not mitigate his actions while on active duty.  His claim that he would be in a more favorable situation not to have reported to boot camp does not provide a basis for relief.  The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of services as “Uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit a different characterization.  The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge.    The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, civilian employment, educational pursuits, etc., an uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Relief denied.

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 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.  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 may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his actions while on active duty sufficient to warrant a change to his discharge.  

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.  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