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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-FA, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00753

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050323.  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 designated the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051020.  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 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 and attached document/letter:

“Need to have these changes to be able to receive the Montgomery GI Bill that I paid into 

Remove Personality Disorder.

Remove General Under Honorable Conditions.”

Representative submitted no issues.

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

“Need to have changes made to be able to receive the Montgomery G. I Bill that I paid into.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter of Appreciation from Commanding Officer, USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65), dtd July 2, 1999
Character Reference ltr from M_ R_, Area Manager District, RGIS Inventory Specialists, dtd December 3, 2004
Congratulation ltr from G_, P_, and M_, dtd October 10, 2003
Character Reference ltr from L_ S_, undtd
Character Reference ltr from W_ M. P_, dtd December 13, 2004
Character Reference ltr from T_ J_ S_, undtd
Character Reference ltr from M_ P. R_, dtd December 23, 2004
Letter from Applicant, dtd December 23, 2004
Letter from J_ E_ W_, Applicant’s Father, dtd December 13, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19970528		Date of Discharge:  20000511

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  21  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  00  02  24

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  5 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  45

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)			Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.17

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, NATO Medal, Navy Unit Commendation

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: 

970821:	Commenced active duty for a period of 36 months under the Fireman Apprentice Program.

990310:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
	Specification: In that FA J_ E_ W_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS ENTERPRISE, on active duty, who knew of his duties on board USS ENTERPRISE located at sea, on or about 10 February 1999, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to stand a proper watch, as it was his duty to do so.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 10 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990324:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUMCJ, Art 92 - dereliction of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990403:	Medical evaluation by psychology.
Applicant diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder, Severe, EPTE, not service aggravated  The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the military service.

000207:	Medical evaluation by Senior Medical Officer
Applicant diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder (by history).  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.

000218:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 1600 on 000218.

000224:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0600 on 000224 (5 days/surrendered).

000225:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (On 7 February 2000, you were evaluated and diagnosed with a longstanding disorder of character and behavior.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000406:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: In that FN J_ E. W_ (Applicant) II, U.S. Naval Reserve, USS ENTERPRISE, on active duty, did, on or about 1600 hours, 18 February 2000, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65), and did remain so absent until on or about 0600 hours, 24 February 2000.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 6 days.  Restriction and extra duty for 2 days suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000506:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).

000506:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

000719:	Commanding Officer, USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65), directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “On 10 March 1999, FA W_ (Applicant) was found guilty at Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment of dereliction of duty.  On 14 April 1999, the ship’s psychologist diagnosed FA W_ (Applicant) with a personality disorder and recommended administrative separation.  On 7 February 2000, a Naval Medical Center Portsmouth psychiatrist diagnosed FA W_ (Applicant) with a personality disorder and recommended administrative separation.  He was subsequently given a Page 13 on 25 February 2000.  On 6 April 2000, I found FA W_ (Applicant) guilty at Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment of unauthorized absence from unit.  FA W_ (Applicant)’s departmental chain of command recommended that I separate him due to his personality disorder and continued misconduct subsequent to his page 13 warning.  As evidenced by enclosure (3), FA W_ (Applicant) violated his Page 13 through a pattern of persistent tardiness, unreliability and sleeping on watch.  More ominously, enclosure (3) describes how FA W_ (Applicant) received packages in April 2000 from a gun company containing information on assault rifles, targeting techniques, survivalist manuals and an expert sniper guide.  He stated an intention to purchase an assault rifle.  These actions justifiably caused a significant and credible threat in the light of his psychological history.  Therefore, I separated FA W_ (Applicant) on 11 May 2000 for personality disorder with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000511 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).  

Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  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.  A general discharge may also be warranted if the Applicant’s performance evaluation averages are not sufficient to merit an honorable discharge.  The Applicant’s record contains evidence of two NJPs for violations of UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence and Article 92, dereliction of duty.  Additionally, the record suggests the Applicant had been formally counseled no less than 36 times for various infractions, including being late for required musters and sleeping during working hours.  The Applicant’s overall performance evaluation average was 2.17.  Regulations permit a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for overall performance evaluation averages of 2.49 and below.  Based upon the Applicant’s nonjudicial punishments, repeated counselings and below average performance marks, the Board could find no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s characterization of service.  Relief denied.

The Applicant desires the removal of “Personality Disorder” from his DD Form 214.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that the Applicant’s separation by reason of convenience of the government – personality disorder was improper or inequitable.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a schizotypal personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 19990403 and again on 20000207.  He was diagnosed, by qualified medical officer, as possessing a long-standing disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Naval service.  Subsequent to these diagnoses and in accordance with regulation, the Applicant was issued a NAVPERS 1070/613 retention warning addressing his personality disorder and allowing him an opportunity to take corrective action.  On 20000406, this retention warning was violated by the Applicant’s nonjudicial punishment for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.  The Applicant was then properly processed and discharged on the basis of his properly diagnosed personality disorder.  The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated for a personality disorder.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation or remove “Personality Disorder” from the Applicant’s DD Form 214 would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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 Naval service.  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 could 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 Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his numerous character reference letters and his proof of post service employment.  After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief denied.

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 educational benefits, such as the Montgomery G.I. Bill, and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the 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.  The Applicant can provide any additional 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 24, effective 
20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, 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.

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