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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-HM2, USN
Docket No. ND05-00629

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050303.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060119.  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 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I gave the military 7 yrs of good service.  A medical board was submitted for a major depressive disorder/systemic disorder and was changed 2 wks before my discharge.  Also my medical board was not properly conducted by law.  I have witness that will speak on my behalf I also feel that if a person a has given the military 100% good service just because he has issues such as 3 deaths, dealing with a father that has alcohol dependency, bankruptcy, and also marital discord all at one time, punishment shouldn’t have been the result.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293.)

“At one time I was a leader and I believed in military leadership, until I was let down by my leaders.  I have never been written up or have I been in any legal trouble while I was in the military.  I received 2 good conduct medals and a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal continued my education and advanced.”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s discharge authorization, dtd October 20, 2004
Administrative separation information (4 pages)
Statement from Applicant, undtd (2 pages)
Automated Medical Board Report Cover Sheet, dtd July 15, 2004
Non-medical assessment, dtd July 13, 2004 (3 pages)
Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, dtd July 1, 2004 (3 pages)
Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dtd August 24, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19970331 - 19970729	COG
	Active:   USN	19970730 - 20001121	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20001122		Date of Discharge:  20041029

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  07
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  13				AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  HM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Marksman Pistol Ribbon, Fleet Marine Force Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal (2), National Defense Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

001122:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

040615:	Medical Board Addendum Evaluation for bilateral knee pain..

040621:	Medical Board Addendum for sensorineural hearing loss.

040701:	Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, 96th Medical Group, Eglin, AFB, FL:  PO2 D_ W_ (Applicant) was first seen in Hurlburt Life Skills Support Center in Apr 04 by Capt (DR.) T_  M_ II.  The initial diagnosis was a Dysthymic Disorder with a concurrent Major Depressive Disorder.  The symptoms of dysthymia were reported to have begun in 2000 and were marked by poor appetite, low concentration, decreased energy and lack of interest in most activities.  These symptoms were reported to be in the mild-moderate range of severity and have been consistently present since 2000 and have on at least two occasions increased to the point of meeting criteria for a Major Depressive Episode.  The most recent Major Depressive Episode appeared to be in relation to several life stressors including, marital difficulties, financial difficulties, and difficulty dealing with an alcoholic father.  The member’s commander, CAPT F_ has provided information that the member has continued to have administrative problems, including being late or not showing at all for work and poor interactions with the patients he works with at the clinic.
Diagnosis:  AXIS I: Dysthymic disorder (not existing prior to service), Major depressive episode, recurrent, moderate severity, Partner relationship problem.  AXIS II: Dependent personality features.  AXIS III: None.  AXIS IV: Occupational problem.  AXIS V: Current global assessment of functioning (GAF): 60.  
Disposition/Recommendation:  PO2 W_ has a mental health condition that has proven to be persistent and resistant to treatment, although he has shown some improvement.  He is competent for pay and records.  It is recommended that he be discharged from the military, this would be in the best interest of the member, his unit, and the Armed Forces.

040713:	Non-medical assessment from Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Pensacola, FL:  This NMA is submitted in the case of HM2 D_ W_ (Applicant)  During the past five months, his overall performance has been below command expectations due to his psychiatric condition, attitude towards work, and work absences.  Due to his numerous absences from the department, it is difficult to plan or appropriately schedule work responsibilities.  This forces others in the department to carry the extra burden that his unplanned absences place upon them.  Commanding Officer recommended separation from the Naval service.  Commanding Officer’s Comments:  “Petty Officer W_(Applicant) has experienced problems with the work place since his arrival at this command due to self-disclosed lack of motivation; poor carry through on assigned tasks, negative attitude toward the military and duty, apathy when dealing with patients, and frequent unauthorized tardiness and absences, as well as excused absences to deal with family problems.  He did not make positive contributions to his workplace.  Overall, his absences, frequent need for his chain of command to intervene when he was in crisis and his lack of productivity when he was present in the workplace have made him an administrative burden.  For the reasons expressed, I recommend he be separated from the U.S. Naval Service.”

040715:	Automated Medical Board Report Cover Sheet:
Diagnosis:  Primary:  30040 Dysthymic Disorder
                   Second:  38910  Left Sided Sensorineural Hearing Loss
                   Third:  71746  Chronic Bilateral Knee Pian
		Indicated Disposition:  Refer to PEB.

040722:	Applicant informed of findings of the Medical Board and did not desire to submit a statement in rebuttal.

040820:	Informal Physical Evaluation Board found Applicant fit to continue on active duty.

040909:	Medical Board Report, Reconsideration Report of Outpatient Medical Board:
Diagnostic Impression:
AXIS I:  A.  Dysthymic disorder in partial remission with medication and psychotherapy.
B.  Major depressive disorder, recurrent, resolved.
AXIS II:  Personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with dependent, passive aggressive, and borderline traits.
AXIS III:  None.
AXIS IV:  Occupational and partner relational problems.
AXIS V:  Current Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): 60.
Disposition/Recommendations:  HM2 W_’s (Applicant) current symptoms are consistent with a personality disorder and a mild dysthymic disorder.  His personality disorder is manifested by a maladaptive pattern of coping with daily living and in relating to others.  This personality style includes communicating indirectly through passive aggressive means, being overreliant on others to meet his needs, and being impulsive.  At this time, the patient’s depressive symptoms seem to be mild in nature and appear to be remitting as a result of his medication and psychotherapy.  However, based on the patient’s multiple psychosocial stressors and history of depression, he may be at risk for future depressive episodes.  Due to the patient’s personality disorder, he should not be involved with direct patient care.  His current occupation as a clerical worker in medical records is appropriate.  Additionally, based on his personality disorder, it is recommended the patient be discharged from the Navy.

041004:	Applicant requested the Informal PEB reconsider the findings based upon new or additional information supporting Applicant’s request.

041006:	The Informal Physical Evaluation Board reconsidered the Applicant’s case and made no change to the preliminary finding that the Applicant is fit for continued naval service.

041014:	Applicant’s request for a formal hearing was referred to the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards.  After careful consideration, the Director disapproved the request.  Decision is final and not subject to appeal.

041018:	Physical Evaluation Board notification of decision.  Finding:  Applicant found fit to perform the duties of his office, grade, or rank on active duty.  Disposition:  Continue this service member on active duty until such active duty is terminated under other provisions of law or regulation.

041020:	Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Pensacola, FL directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of personality disorder [extracted from Applicant’s supporting documentation].

Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20041029 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant contends his discharge should be honorable because of his 7 years of service, two Good Conduct Medals and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.  Under applicable regulations, separations based on a personality disorder should be honorable unless a general (under honorable conditions) or an entry-level separation is warranted.  A general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s service contains records of nonjudicial punishments, disciplinary actions, or if other significant negative aspects existed, which outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s period of service.  Additionally, a general discharge may be warranted if the Applicant’s performance evaluation averages are not sufficient to merit an honorable discharge.  A review of the Applicant’s service record reveals he was awarded a Good Conduct Medal in 2000 and 2003 as well as a Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal in 2003.  Unfortunately, however, the Applicant’s service record does not contain a complete discharge package.  The Applicant’s record contains no evidence of NJP or other formal disciplinary action and the Applicant’s record contains no evidence of his overall performance evaluation averages.  There is, however, evidence in the record that suggests the Applicant had committed several unauthorized absence offenses prior to his discharge.  Furthermore, in several of the Applicant’s medical evaluations there are indications that the Applicant experienced difficulties with satisfactorily completing his duties.  In the absence of the Applicant’s discharge package and performance evaluations, the Board presumed the Applicant’s conduct and performance marks sufficiently outweighed his record of otherwise honorable service to warrant a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that his medical board was not properly conducted by law and was changed two weeks prior to discharge.  As noted above, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption permits the Board to presume that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the Applicant’s Naval service and subsequent administrative processing.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his medical board was in violation of any statue, law, regulation, instruction, or order.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that he should not have been punished because he gave the Navy 7 years of good service and was forced to cope with various family hardships.  The Applicant’s issue is without merit.  Administrative discharge processing is a separate and distinct process from punitive proceedings such as NJP and court-martial.  Furthermore, administrative discharge processing is administrative in nature and not considered a form of punishment.  As such, the Applicant’s implication that his administrative separation was a form of punishment is erroneous.  Based upon the evidence of record, the NDRB found no improprieties or inequities in the Applicant’s discharge processing.  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.  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 19 June 2005, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder. 

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

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

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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