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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-MM3, USN
Docket No. ND05-01415

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050823.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Reduction in Force.”  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 20060504.  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:

“Members of the Board:

I respectfully request that my Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to “RE-3C or something more favorable and the narrative reason for my separation be changed to “Reduction in Force” or “Secretarial Authority.”

I contend that my records be corrected based on clemency and equity.  I also contend that it is unjust for me to continue to suffer the adverse effects of the narrative reason for my discharge tarnishing my otherwise outstanding citizenship and civilian career.  I have already had to suffer the adverse effects for almost a decade.  I have provided documents regarding my post-service achievements in support of my request for clemency.

I was discharged on August 10, 1996 for the convenience of the government based on a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to be rendered incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  I deny ever suffering from a personality disorder at the time of discharge.  I was diagnosed by a qualified medical officer as possessing a continued but short standing disorder of character and mild misbehavior of limited severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy.  Moreover, I was not considered a risk to do harm to others, or myself nor was I considered suicidal or homicidal.  My DD 214, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates I was separated for a Personality Disorder.  Another Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why I was discharged.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293 and/or from an attached document/letter to the Board.)

I contracted my initial enlistment in the Navy on December 14, 1993.  I attended and passed Nuclear Field “A” school.  I attended Nuclear Power school but was disenrolled on the 13th week due to the lack of academic ability.  On December 14, 1994, I reported to the USS Constellation for surface fleet duty.  On March 21, 1996, a psychiatric evaluation was conducted.  From May 18th to the 19th, I violated UCMJ Article 86, UA for 2 days, subsequently receiving NJP for the violation on June 17, 2005.  On July 8, 1996, I received notification that I was recommended for discharge for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder as evidenced by my psychiatric evaluation and NJP.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and I received an honorable discharge on August 10, 1996 and issued Reenlistment Eligibility code RE-4.  I completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days of active service, 1 year, 7 days, and 26 days of sea service, and served in the grade of Petty Officer 3rd Class (E-4), Machinists Mate, at the time of discharge.

Pre-Service Activities: Prior to entering the Navy, I graduated from ITT Technical Institute with Honors on June 1993 and received an Associates degree in Electronics Technology.

Post-Service Activities and Accomplishments: In December 2002, I received my Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering.  On March 2004, I began working at Raytheon in Long Beach, California.  Several months later, in June, I was fortunate to be offered of employment with Boeing’s C-17 program.  In March 2005, I graduated and earned my Masters degree in Electrical Engineering.

I have had difficulties in obtaining a job when my DD214 is reviewed revealing reason for separation.  It has discouraged many employment opportunities and may deter future employment opportunities as well.

What my service records do not tell you is that I was physically and mentally drained.  I was suffering from the daily stresses and having trouble adjusting to life at sea.  Conditions worsened as I began working in the engine room, an environment where I began developing back problems.  To this day, I am still experiencing chronic back pain, but have since learned to cope and deal with it.  I consider myself very fortunate to be working for a company with a great health plan where I can seek medical professionals.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t cut it in the Navy.  The military just wasn’t for me.  Granted, I still feel proud and a sense of pride to have served some time.  I recall my first and only WestPac (94-95) cruise on the USS Constellation during Operation Southern Watch where I received my Southwest Asia Service metal.  Life onboard was nevertheless difficult, eventually to a state where I almost couldn’t tolerate it any longer.  I strongly believe had I not been discharged at the time I did, things may have gotten worse.  My health and physical well-being was diminishing to detrimental levels.

Life lessons learned; it has taught me to take responsibility for actions that has lead up to my discharge.  Moreover, I have become an outstanding citizen.  I believe I have paid my debt to society.

Documentation

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

Twenty-eight pages of service record
ITT Technical Institute Associate of Applied Science Degree, dtd September 10, 1995
ITT Technical Institute Honors Certificate, dtd September 10, 1993
California State University of Los Angeles – Bachelor of Science Degree, dtd December 14, 2002
California State University of Los Angeles - Masters of Science, dtd March 19, 2005
Raytheon employment offer letter, undtd
Boeing employment offer letter, dtd April 15, 2004
Top Ten Government Contractors of 2004
VA rating decision letter, dtd February 3, 1997
Mental Health Consultation report, dtd March 21, 1996 (4 pages)
Overmanned skills letter
Eight-four pages of Applicant’s medical record
Boeing Performance Evaluation Worksheet, dtd January 14, 2005
Boeing Performance Evaluation Worksheet, dtd December 12, 2005
Boeing Employee Summary View, dtd February 13, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19930330 - 19931213	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19931214		Date of Discharge:  19960810

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  27
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  2 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  78

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.6 (3)	Behavior:  3.7 (3)	OTA:  3.67  4.0 evals
Performance:  1.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)	OTA:  1.71  5.0 eval

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Southwest Asia Service Medal with one Bronze Star, Expert Pistol Shot Medal

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

HONORABLE/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

950816:	Applicant advised of failure to meet the Physical Readiness Standards due to failing the official PRT/failing to participate in the official PRT.  Applicant enrolled in command’s Physical Readiness Program.

960328:	Medical evaluation by Mental Health Unit, Branch Medical Clinic, San Diego, CA by D_ G_, Ph.D., Staff Psychologist.
[Medical officer statement, something close to the following]  Applicant diagnosed with AXIS I: Pathological gambling.  AXIS II: Personality disorder, not otherwise specified - passive/aggressive (primary diagnosis).  AXIS III:  Back pain.  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.

960410:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Personality disorder manifested by inconsistent performance, habitual tardiness, being distracted and failing to complete assigned work.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

960518:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 960520.

960520:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 on 960520 (2 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 971215.

960617:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence from unit 0n 0700, 18 May 1996 until 0700, 20 May 1996.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month (susp x 6 mos), restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to E-3 (susp x 6 mos).  No indication of appeal in the record.

960712:	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 due to a personality disorder as evidenced by your psychiatrist evaluation of 21 March 1996 and your subsequent nonjudicial punishment of 18 May 1996.  

960712:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

960822:	Commanding Officer forwarded report of Applicant’s separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder to Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-254).

*Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960810 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant contends he was not suffering from a personality disorder at the time of discharge and asks the Board to change his narrative reason to reduction in force or secretarial authority. The Board found that competent medical authority at the Mental Health Unit, Branch Medical Clinic San Diego CA evaluated the Applicant. The medical evaluation by D_ G_, Ph.D., Staff Psychologist, diagnosed the Applicant with an AXIS I: Pathological gambling, AXIS II: Personality disorder, not otherwise specified - passive/aggressive (primary diagnosis), and AXIS III:  Back pain. The psychiatrist further recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. 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. The Board also found that the documentation and statements, to include post service documents, provided by the Applicant, were not sufficient to warrant revision of official records that were accurate at the time of issuance. Relief denied.

The NDRB advises the applicant that his service record is missing an element of the administrative discharge package (separating authority approval). In the Applicant’s case, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and that the Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.

The Applicant respectfully request that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to “RE-3C or something more favorable. 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.  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 13, effective 
24 June 1996 until 02 Oct 1996), Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

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