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

ex-FC3, USN 
Docket No. ND04-01467

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040922.  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 “PTSD.”  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 20050214.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was 4-1 that the character of the discharge shall change, but by unanimous vote, the narrative reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated:

1.  	“Before joining the United States Navy, I was enrolled full time in college pursing my dreams to become an elementary school teacher. I had always dreamed about joining the Navy, since my grandfather had been in the service as well. I had heard wonderful stories that inspired me to join. I got my weight under control with hundreds of hours of hard work at the gym and a change in my diet. I fought long and hard hours at the gym to be within Navy standards. I wanted to join and see the world. I wanted to travel to Australia, Japan, and Singapore. I wanted to be able to finish my school later using the GI Bill. I wanted to serve my country with honor, courage, and commitment. I was and still am a proud American.
When I joined the Navy, I thought of it as an opportunity to not only see the world, but to gain lifelong memories. My first year in the service flew by and I had no regrets about my decision to join. I loved it!! I love being around all my shipmates, I wore my uniform with pride, and I was serving in the greatest Navy of them all. I wanted to be a “lifer.” I was going to do the twenty years and retire at age 38.  What could go wrong??
Well, when I was stationed in San Diego, CA at Fleet Training Center for CIWS School, I was sexually assaulted. I was put through an NCIS investigation which lead up to an Executive Officer’s Inquiry. I was told by the XO of the First Class Petty Officer that he didn’t believe my ‘story” and that he “knew” that one of his “people” could not have possibly done what I “accused” him of doing. I felt betrayed, not only by the system, but by the Navy’s leaders. I have nightmares of what he did to me. Sometimes I can recall his actions in my head, which only brings me to tears. Is this the example of leadership in the Navy, I wondered??
I eventually finished up school in San Diego, CA and was given orders to the USS Bridge (AOE 10) home ported out of Bremerton, WA. There, I was one of the first female CIWS technicians assigned to the ship. This caused many troubles for me. The men did not respect women, nor did they believe that women should be in the Navy, much less a CIWS technician handling ammunition. I tried to prove them wrong, but exceeding their expectation, obtaining my Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist pin with three months of reporting onboard the ship. My reward for my hard work, ninety days duty as a food service attendant on the mess decks. I was told the day that I reported onboard that “he was going to make my life a living hell because women don’t belong in the Navy.” Because I was led to believe that I wasn’t worth anything, I started feeling bad about myself and found myself in a depressive, suicidal mood. I felt depressed for a long time, but was too scared to mention it to unfriendly and taunting medical staff. When I finally mentioned my situation, they were reluctant to help. They gave me Prozac and sent me on my way.
I finally decided that I had had enough of feeling so down that I had to find someone who would help me. So, I went to the Family Service Center in Keyport, WA. There I saw M_ H_. He was willing to help and referred me to the hospital to see Lt. P_. She diagnosed me as depressed and had me separated under a personality disorder. I was discharged November 5, 2002 in Bremerton, WA aboard the USS Bridge (AOE 10).
In January 2003,I was brought to the Bremerton Naval Hospital by ambulance due to feelings of depression and having a suicidal plan. The reason stems from my navy experiences and due to my PTSD. I was evaluated by several doctors, talked to a county officer, and then brought to a home to be watched over night. My father flew from San Jose, CA to Bremerton, WA the next morning to release me and to watch over me for the next couple of weeks. This caused a huge burden on my family, one that would not have existed if I hadn’t had the troubles I had while in the service.
After separation, I was diagnosed as having PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder by the Veterans Affairs. I feel that my narrative reason for discharge should be changed to PTSD, vice “personality disorder,” since it is why I was originally discharged. I currently receive 30% disability compensation due to PTSD through the VA. I feel as though I did serve my country honorably. I served through Operation Enduring Freedom, obtained my ESWS pin, had Early Promote Evaluations, never went to Captain’s Mast, nor did I ever cause trouble, or cause problems with my shipmates. I feel as though I was an “ideal” sailor until I was sexually assaulted and discriminated against by my fellow shipmates. All of my enlisted performance, conduct, and physical evaluations were above average. I am proud of my military service. I want to tell my daughter that I served honorably in the United States Navy because I feel I did.”

2.  	“I firmly believe that the time I served in the United States Navy was honorable. I feel that the discharge I was given, “personality disorder,” was just a way of the ship discharging me without having to pay or compensate me in any way. Not only was I not properly diagnosed, but I was made to pay back my initial enlistment bonus and the leave days I sold back, along with my final paycheck was recouped for repayment of the bonus as well. I also received a letter stating that I owed the Navy approximately $2000.00 as well. I had to come up with that money to pay the Navy back as well.
Although I did see doctors while I was in the service, not only the ship’s doctor, but also a lieutenant who is a staff psychologist at Naval Hospital Bremerton, WA. I feel that I was wrongly diagnosed, as I am now receiving compensation for a 30% disability for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
I was profoundly upset with the discharge I was given, but due to time constraints and the ships ignorance, I was given a General under Honorable Conditions discharge with a narrative reason being “personality disorder.” I do not have a “personality disorder.” I have PTSD, which was caused due to my service in the military. I believe that I was given this discharge because they didn’t want to have to pay me or give me benefits for the rest of my life, as I have come to find out. I was not given the proper exams or was evaluated for the condition that they were discharging me for.
It was only later when I applied for compensation for the disability did the VA discover I had PTSD, although the signs were apparent during my service. I had received early promote evaluations, was designated mount captain of mount 21 Close In Weapon System mount on the USS Bridge, awarded my Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist pin within three months of reporting onboard, and received praise and appreciation among my peers. I feel as though I was an outstanding sailor. I was an outstanding sailor who was misdiagnosed, discharged improperly, unfairly, and unjustly, and who served my country honorably.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Department of Veterans Affairs decisional document dtd 030226

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000128 - 000208	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000209		Date of Discharge:  021105

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  77

Highest Rate:  FC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.67 (3)		Behavior:  3.33 (3)		OTA:  3.38

Military Decorations:  None

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

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:

021028:	Applicant diagnosed with Personality Disorder with depressed mood and occupational problems.  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 deemed at moderate risk for harm to self at this time.

021030:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of 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.

021030:	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.

021105:	Applicant discharged.  Commanding Officer directed the Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge 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.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s ltr of 021121.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021105 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 but inequitable (C and D).

Issues 1-2.  For discharges based on personality disorder, the characterization of service should be “type warranted by service record.”  The Board found no counseling entries, nonjudicial punishments, or adverse evaluations to warrant a general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  Therefore, the Board found that the Applicant’s general (under honorable characterization) was inequitable and voted 4-1 to change the Applicant’s discharge characterization to honorable.  Relief granted.

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’s assertions, that she was misdiagnosed and was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder does not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 20021028.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper.  To change the narrative reason would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one for a physical disability or “PTSD” as requested.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning relief in this matter.

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s) 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023