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

 ex-ATAN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00764

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050328.  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 20050812.  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 and voted 4-1 that the narrative reason 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:

“My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 23 months of service with no other adverse action.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  “I have an additional request.  Please upgrade my reenlistment code from RE4.  I’ve been sober for 20 months and have spoken as a guest speaker at St. Peter’s chemical dependency center several times on behalf of recovery.  I lived in an Oxford House for over a year, was the president of the house (elected) and became elected as a chapter officer, fulfilling my obligations as secretary.  I’ve been employed as a personal trainer at the same gym for nearly two years, live a healthy lifestyle and help others to do the same. Additionally, there is current evidence to support increased instances of adult suicide linked with Zoloft.  I will send a separate package to CVN76 for review by the C.O.  The package will contain personal letters of references from personally known, credible and contactable sources, incl former employers, clients, a psychologist.  The District Attorney of Mason County, and others.  The purpose of this project is to make myself available to fulfill the obligation of my contract with the Navy.  In other words, I feel a duty to finish the enlistment I signed up for.  Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.”

Documentation

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

None were submitted by the Applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	010525 - 010528	COG
		   USNR (DEP)	010322 - 010409	ELS
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010529		Date of Discharge:  030409

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  National Defense Service Medal

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*Not available.

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:

021231:	Applicant admitted for psychological treatment due to toxic overdose of Zyban and Zoloft.  Inpatient diagnosis:  Cocaine dependant, alcohol dependant and cannabis dependant (cannabis dependency is in remission).  [Extracted from medical record]

030110:	Letter from Naval Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Portsmouth VA, to Commanding Officer, Precommissioning Unit (PCU) Ronald Reagan.  Psychiatric Evaluation found that the patient referred by your command has not psychiatric disease or conditions that would be responsive to therapy.  However, the patient has a longstanding disorder of character and behavior, a personality disorder, which make them likely to become or remain a disciplinary or other problem during their time in service and repeatedly interfere with their serving successfully in the Navy.  The evaluating psychiatrist recommended that patient be administrative separated for unsuitability in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-122 (former 3620225).

030129:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government personality disorder.

030213:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to submit statements to the separation authority and obtain copies of documents that will be forwarded to the separation authority.  

030214:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Inability to adapt to navy lifestyle, communicate successfully with your peers and chain of command, and to conform to navy standards), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

030218:	Applicant admitted to Level III Residential Program with the diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence.

030219:	Applicant’s urinalysis positive for cocaine metabolite.

030314:	Applicant completed Level III Residential Program.

030328:	Commanding Officer, Precommissioning Unit (PCU) Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) advised Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-832) of Applicant’s discharge warranted by service record by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed longstanding personality disorder.  Commanding Officers comments:  “This diagnosis makes him likely to become or remain a disciplinary or other problem during his time in the service and repeatedly interferes with him serving successfully in the Navy.”  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030409 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).  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).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of proficiency and conduct marks (D).    

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge is warranted when significant 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 a retention warning for an inability to conform to Navy standards, a positive urinalysis for cocaine and a diagnosis of cocaine and alcohol dependency.  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 is not warranted.

The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority as evidenced by the letter from Naval Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Portsmouth VA, to the Applicant’s Commanding Officer on 20030110.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  Relief denied.

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.  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 should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  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 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 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, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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