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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-ENFA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00841

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050420.  The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “other than personality.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  Prior to granting personal appearance hearings, the Board conducts a documentary review and accepted the application on that basis.   The Applicant listed a member of Congress as his representative on the DD Form 293.  Members of Congress and their employees do not normally represent applicants before the Board.  In the absence of written authorization from the Member of Congress, the Board processed the application without representation. 

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 reason for 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:

“I am requesting this change so that I may reenlist at least into reserve duty.  I am looking to be back into the military so that I may clear up my past.  I wish to put time in so that I may change my character of discharge from general or honorable in time.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  “When I was discharged I had no idea the effect on myself & life it would have. I was young & immature.  The conditions of my Discharge of findings for reasons of which are inaccurate.  I was ask by the physiologist if I wanted out and yes at the time I was making decision based on emotion & feeling.  I was in TPU for an injury.  Cleared for duty I was not receiving new order & being bounced from one small job to another.  This is not an excuse I now realized.  I am requesting in the least for another opinion w/ the naval doctors if so require.  Until that moment of frustration with the injury I have had no poor judgment.  My record was quiet good.  At this time I was AWOL as well.  I am respectfully requesting another chance & personal evaluation so that if I am at least wrong and I truly do have a personality disorder & it was not youth & immaturity it will be put to rest.  This is not the case.  I do have a high mechanical aptitude & have increased myself a lot & could be of good use”          

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter of Recommendation from R___ W___, dtd April 2, 2004
Reference Letter from S___ J___, dtd April 15, 2004
Tasker Package (webpage printout of unknown origin)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960703 - 970618	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970619		Date of Discharge:  990805

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  19
	Inactive:  None

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

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  67

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Expert Rifle Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  58

*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:

990317:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
	Award: Forfeiture of $537.90 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal.

990318:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Based on your Violation UCMJ Article 86, absence without leave as evidenced by imposition of NJP on 17 March 99), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990622:	Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, JA Mental Health Evaluation: On 02 March 1999, Lieutenant D___ from the internal Medicine Clinic referred Fireman S____ to the Mental Health Clinic of the U.S. Naval Hospital (NAVHOSP), Yokosuka, for the evaluation of severe anxiety and depressive symptoms. Commander J___ S___, a mental health professional, in the Mental Health Department, NAVHOSP Yokosuka, was the staff psychiatrist who evaluated him.  The evaluation revealed a longstanding and enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior marked by insecurity, a lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement, and a difficulty with anger management.  This pattern is manifested in his cognition, emotion management, and interpersonal functioning and behavior control. Applicant diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  Fireman S___ is deemed unsuitable for continued military service based on the above diagnosis.  The evaluation revealed a long history of problems adapting due to his personality disorder, which leads to anger and the impulse to act on his anger.  His insecurity and low self- esteem predict that when he is angry with himself due to lack of accomplishments or frustrated because of the obstacles he encounters in attempting to meet his goals he has a high potential to act self-destructive.  Therefore, this service member’s personality disorder is considered so severe that it is significantly impairing his effective functioning in the military environment.  In addition, Fireman S___ is considered potentially dangerous to others based upon his past history, homicidal thoughts and impulsivity.

990702:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government.

990702:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

990720:	Commander Fleet Activities, Yokosuka, JA directed the Applicant's general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990805 with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service 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 and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for the Applicant’s 58-day unauthorized absence, a violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s Article 86 infraction is considered a serious offense.  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 contends his misconduct was the result of being young and immature.  He further contends that his moment of frustration, resulting from an injury and “being bounced from one small job to another” caused his poor jugement.   The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

The Applicant was diagnosed on 19990302 with a “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” by competent medical authority at the Mental Health Clinic, Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan and was recommended for expeditious administrative separation from the Navy.  Thus, the Board finds that the reason for discharge reflects the Applicant’s mental health status at the time of his discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance.  “Personality Disorder” is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant’s discharge.  The contention that the personality disorder no longer exists or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to revise official records that were accurate at the time of issuance.  Relief on this basis is unwarranted.

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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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), 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(s) 

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

C.  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.

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

E.  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