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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-CTI2, USN 
Docket No. ND05-01344

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050802.  The Applicant requests that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed.  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 20060420.  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 Honorable 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/or attached document/letter:

“the discharge was misrepresented  See appendix “A”

Appendix A

I am petitioning to have the “personality disorder” statement removed from my DD 214, It is under line item 28 Narrative Reason for Separation. The reasons I feel it is unjust follow:

Background information: About a year before my discharge, I went through a rather unusual Admiral/Captains mast. I was sent TAD from my own command to be masted, against the wishes of my own commanding officer, command master chief~, and chain of command, which requested that I receive a counseling statement for a minor infraction. Examination of my DD 214 will show that I was a stellar sailor; in less than 6 years I had made E-6, earned 3 NECs, my Surface Warfare (SW), Subsurface Warfare (SG), Combatant Craft Crewman (CC) insignias, and 3 Navy Achievement Medals.

Frame of mind, possible course of action: Of course, I was not happy about this turn of events. But this is to be expected and a quite normal reaction. I had pored all I had into the Navy and it went down the drain in an instant. I moved from my previous command, NSGA Key West to NSGA, Medina, TX. I continued to exhaust all my avenues to be exonerated, but to no avail. In the end I even wrote my congressman and informed the command. I told the command that I felt betrayed by the very people that I had given my all to and that I had little stomach to stay in the Navy and asked for a discharge.

Infraction: The command at first did not really believe me about the circumstances of my mast. (to be expected, everyone claims they were unfairly masted) However, it just so happened that my senior chief from NSGA Key West was there and actually talked to the commander explaining the unusual situation. The command as a whole became sympathetic to my plight, but the Navy didn’t have any real options for discharging someone in my position.

It is here that Senator Phil Graham’s people looked into my case, contacting the command, and things starting rolling in a different direction. I believe the pressure of the congressional inquiry moved the command to find a solution. They advised me to talk to a counselor/psychiatrist and so I did at their behest. The counselor/psychiatrist and I had a long talk about the situation and she said, “Chris, I can help you get out, and this is how it works”. She told to me that she could say that I had a personality disorder (obsessive/compulsive), and then explained to me that clinically 70 percent of the population has some type of personality disorder and this was not as bad as it sounds.

Apparently this is what the command was thinking as an avenue for me to be discharged. I had a discussion with them about it, and they assured me that they had done this before and I would receive an honorable discharge with no ill effects on my DD 214 other than a less than stellar re-enlistment code.
After some consideration, I accepted. But when I went to sign the paperwork at PSD, they put the “personality disorder” statement on the 214. Unbeknownst to the command,
a change was made to the regulation a couple months earlier. At this point there was nothing I could do. I would never have accepted this detrimental type of DD 214.

Request:  The narrative on the discharge was misrepresented to me, although I know it was not intentionally. Therefore, I am requesting the board; have my DD 214 changed to be like it was just a few months before, removing the detrimental statement. I feel that it was unjust, but not malicious.

I also submit, in my personal opinion, that it is in the best interests of the US Navy and the department of Defense to make this correction. I have a bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and am working on my Masters in Applied Physics. I would very much like to serve my country again, although in a civilian capacity either for the DoD directly or a DoD contractor. I have much to offer and am just looking for the opportunity.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Respectfully,
[signed]
C_ W_(Applicant)
(Social Security Number deleted)”

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

This was a terribly unfortunate incident that has haunted me.  I have exhausted all appeal methods and am running out of time.  I would like to serve my country, but it is impossible with that RE-3G code and narrative of “Personality Disorder”

Documentation

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

Letter from Board for Correction of Naval Records to the Applicant, dtd March 3, 2003
DD Form 149, dtd November 12, 2003
Statement, unsigned, undtd
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from the Applicant, undtd
Letter from Dallas Independent School District providing verification of employment, 	dtd August 30, 2005
Transcript, University of Texas at Austin, dtd April 23, 2002 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19890410 - 19890423	COG
	Active:    USN	19890424 - 19921008	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19921009		Date of Discharge:  19970228

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  04  20
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  0 days
	Confinement:		  0 days

Age at Entry:  29

Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  14				AFQT:  96

Highest Rate:  CTI1(SW)

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.9 (4)			Behavior:  3.9 (4)		OTA:  3.88
Performance:  3.5 (2)			Behavior:  3.0 (2)		OTA:  3.14

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Navy Achievement Medal (3), Joint Meritorious Unit Award (3), Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Expert Rifleman Medal, Expert Pistol Shot Medal, Submarine Insignia, Surface Warfare Insignia, Small Craft Insignia.

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

HONORABLE/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3620225.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

921009:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

950629:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs).
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (4 specs):
	Award: [* Record of NJP is copied to microfiche and the award is not readable.]  No indication of appeal in the record.  

970109:	Medical evaluation by J_ J. C_ III, MAJ, USAF, MC, Chief, Adult Psychiatric Services and J_ R. K_, CAPT, USAF, MC, Resident Psychiatry.  Applicant evaluated at Mental Health Clinic, 59th Medical Wing, Lackland AFB, Texas on 13 Nov 96.  The clinical impression is:
AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood 
AXIS II: Schizoid personality disorder.
The clinical opinion is that the personality disorder is chronic, severe, existed prior to enlistment and of a static nature.  It results in difficulty coping and predisposes PO W_ (Applicant) to depressive symptoms, which are not static and appear to be building in intensity.  In combination, the chronic, severe personality disorder and secondary depressive disorder are unlikely to show clinical improvement.  PO W_ (Applicant) perceives his status on Active Duty in the Navy to exacerbate his depressive symptoms, and his potential as an asset to the USN is significantly compromised.  As such, he is likely to become an increasing administrative burden to his command with deteriorating performance, conduct, conduct, reliability and judgment.  While PO W_  (Applicnat) has never expressed suicidal ideation, based on statements he has made and his current level of coping abilities, it is likely that his behavior will become more self-destructive if he continues on active duty status.  Administrative separation is highly recommended at the convenience of the government by reason of severe personality disorder.

970122:	Medical evaluation by J_ J. C_ III, MAJ, USAF, MC, Chief, Adult Psychiatric Services and J_ R. K_, CAPT, USAF, MC, Resident Psychiatry.  Addendum to Statement of Medical Condition for PO W_ (Applicant).
Applicant’s clinical impression remains:
AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
AXIS II: Schizoid personality disorder.  
As PO W_ (Applicant) status remains uncertain, and his stressful situation persists, he has recently endorsed fleeting suicidal ideation without plan.  While not an acute risk for suicide, this is a troubling development as further evidence of his suboptimal coping skills.  It also places him at risk for suicidal behavior in the future, particularly if he remains on active duty, which he perceives as stressful.

970127:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Professional performance since arrival at this command has been moderate to substandard for a Second Class Petty Officer.  Distracted by past administrative actions taken against Applicant at previous command.  This has caused a complete loss of focus on duties and responsibilities to this command and the Navy.  Attempts to correct these deficiencies has been minimal and has resulted in continued limited availability for duty.  Inability to stay focused on duties and responsibilities is not in compliance with the Navy Core Values and good order and discipline.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970131:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of severe personality disorder as evidenced by a statement of medical condition issued by the Chief, Adult Psychiatric Service, 59th Medical Wing, Lackland, AFB.

970131:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

970218:	Commanding Officer, Naval Security Group Activity, Medina authorized and directed the Applicant's discharge by reason of personality disorder. 

970228:	Commanding Officer, Naval Security Group Activity, Medina forwarded the administrative discharge package to CNP (PERS-254E).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970228 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of honorable.  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 Applicant contends that the narrative reason for separation is unjust because the “narrative on the discharge was misrepresented to me”.  The Applicant claims that while he understood that he had a personality disorder, he did not realize that “personality disorder” would be the narrative reason for discharge until the day of his discharge, when he signed his DD-214.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 19961113.  On 19970131, the Applicant was notified of the intended recommendation for discharge by reason of a personality disorder.  The Applicant does not deny that he was suffering from a personality disorder at the time of his discharge from naval service and the documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the diagnosis of a personality disorder.  The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable.  The summary of service clearly documents that personality disorder, was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  Since no other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the Applicant was discharged, a change would be inappropriate.  Relief based on this issue 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 additional evidence related to this 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 14, effective 
03 Oct 1996 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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