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

   ex-IT3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00596

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050218.  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 did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050620.  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.  “Dear Sirs or Mamas, I am requesting a change in discharge in order to participate in the G. I Bill Program that I enrolled in prior to my discharge.  I was discharged due to depression 5 months prior to my enlistment terminating.  I enrolled in the G.I Bill during Boot camp in 1997.  It was thought best by me, my command and the ships Dr. to Begin School.  Due to the abruptness of the events.  The wrong code was put in place that made me ineligible for my benefits.  I did not find this out until finally trying to use my benefits for school

Remarks:  I understand slight problems occur.  I stay positive an pray everything will work out, the right way.  Just a few months prior to my discharge I received my 1st Conduct Award and was a model sailor.  First in my class in “RM” A School.  Education was always important to me.  After My fathers death and my attempted murder within days of his death, The Psychologist and Capt R_ made it a point for me to go to college and I thank them.  Also I have talked to some Veterans like myself with a similar discharge and actually less service time,…on the G.I Bill.  I did not smoke pot, or disrespect my country, I just want to better myself finally.
THANK YOU!  GOD BLESS!”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970715 - 970930	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  971001		Date of Discharge:  010302

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  12  (Excludes time lost)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  IT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (3)		Behavior:  2.00 (3)		OTA:  2.53

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR, GCM, BER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  22

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:

990622:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0630 on 990622.

990623:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0645 on 990623 (1 day/ surrendered).  Applicant’s EAOS changed to 010930.

001030:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86: Absent from unit from 000922 to 000924.  Award: Restriction and extra duty for 25 days.  Five days of restriction and extra duty suspended.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001218:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0630 on 001218.

010108:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0630 on 010108 (21 days).

010119:	Applicant makes voluntary statement to preliminary investigator regarding
his violation of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence.  Statement
explained circumstances relating to his whereabouts during the period
from 001218 to 010108.

010213:	Evaluation by Clinical Psychologist, Medical Department, USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74):  Applicant diagnosed with occupational problems and personality disorder.  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 or others.

010220:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 001218 to 010108.  Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to
E-3.  Five days of the restriction, extra duty, and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010221:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence). Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued disciplinary and discharge warning.

010222:	Evaluation by Mental Health Services, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA:  Applicant diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, occupational problems, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic and antisocial features.  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 possessed a significant risk for escalating his behavior if returned to his command.

010301:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Applicant advised that the least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).

010301:	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.

010722:	Commanding Officer, USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) informs COMNAVPERSCOM that Applicant was discharged on 010302 with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010302 with a characterization of service of 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).

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends in his remarks that he was a model sailor and was even awarded a good conduct medal for his military service.  When the service of a Sailor has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when 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 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings for violations of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence (a total of 21 days absent) and a retention warning on 20010221 for continued deficiencies in performance and conduct.  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 on this basis is denied.

With respect to receiving benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the Board advises the Applicant that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval 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.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 Navy.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  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.  The Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief on this basis is not warranted.

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 27, effective 
27 March 2000 until 13 Aug 2001, 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