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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-MM3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00497

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060224.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).  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 20061130.  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 characterization of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues:

Equity – Misdiagnosis 

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Letter from Applicant, dtd February 9, 2006
Excerpts from Service Record (2 pgs)
Medical Documentation from Charleston Naval Hospital, dtd July 1, 2006
Medical Documentation from NH Psychology Clinic, dtd January 21, 2001 (2 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19990513 - 19991024	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19991025		Date of Discharge:  20020517

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  22  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  182 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  4 (24-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.67 (3) 		Behavior:  3.0 (3) 			OTA:  2.94

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

010126:	M.A. S_, PA-C LT, MSC, USNR: 23 yo white male sent here by NWS chaplain for vague suicidal ideation.  Patient c/o hypersomonia, low appetite, low concentration, low libido, & loss of pleasurable activities.
	A: Depression.
	P:  1. No one here in command _ who I can talk to about his dissatisfaction with the Navy or NPP.
	2. Will submit routine consult for eval @ MMC (NASHOSP) with Dr S_.
	3. Have patient contact with me for safety.
	4. Contact duty PCM this weekend or me next week if suicidal ideation. 

010131:	J_ L. S_, NH Psychology Clinic: Pt reported increasing anxiety as well as depression secondary to his perceived “failing” at NPTU.  He endorsed fleeting suicidal ideation without intent or plan.  He indicated that has been falling further behind his peers at NPTU, that he is frustrated with his lack of progress and that he is “certain” that he will fail, no matter what he does.  His suicidal ideation was carefully assessed and he stated convincingly that he would not act on these thoughts.  When he was age 13, his twin sister died from cancer and he knows the devastation that his parents experienced at that time.  He stated that he would never put them through another such experience.  Pt endorsed a generalized type of anxiety-feeling keyed up, trembling or shaking at times, nausea, headaches and a feeling of losing control.  These symptoms occur when at work and when anticipating going to work.  He also feels depressed for more days than not; sleeping poorly; a loss of concentration; and anhedonia.  He stated that he has not been involved in his hobbies for over one month.  He is dating, however, and looks forward to being with his girlfriend.  Patient’s family history was not contributory.  MSE: Pt. was alert and fully oriented.  He avoided eye contact.  Speech was normal rate and rhythm; 1/c/gd.  No AVH; no delusions or abnormal preoccupations identified.  Vague suicidal ideation without plan/intent-low risk.  No HI.  Memory intact; intellect intact. No ETOH contribution.
	Impression: 
	Axis I: Adjustment d/o with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  R/O GAD; R/O depressive d/o NOS.
	Axis II: deferred.
	Recommendations:
	1. The patient’s suicide ideation suggest NPQ for nuclear power and submarine duty.  A waiver from the command would typically be required for continuation.
	2. In light of the member’s struggling academics, this examiner advises dismissal from NPTU by reason of the suicidal ideation.
	3. Recommend retention in the Navy.  At this time, there is no psychological contraindication to being found fit for duty in the fleet.  [Extracted from documents provided by the Applicant.]

010625:	R_ B. C_ LT/MC/USNR 2WQ/8983 Psychiatry, USS Seattle: 24 yo male AD/MM3/USN requested drop from nuclear program for dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety.  Now placed in main spaces on ship.  Wants out. Vague suicidal ideation, anxious, depressive symptoms insists on eval.  Please eval and treat.  Provisional Diagnosis: Adjustment D/O with mixed anxious and depressed features.  Command does not support separation.  

010625:	R_ B. C_ LT/MC/USNR 2WQ/8983 Psychiatry, USS Seattle:  Self referred for desire to get out of Navy.  Pt described neurovegetative symptoms and “panic attacks.”  Pt was placed on USS Seattle as MM instead of starting new A school as promised.

010625:	R_ B. C_ LT/MC/USNR 2WQ/8983 Psychiatry, USS Seattle: Pt routed chit to CO and squadron commander requesting separation due to being “crazy” Chit was denied per CO.
	A/P I. Adjustment D/O with mixed anxious and depressive features.
	II: Immature and narcissistic traits.  NO EVIDENCE OF PD.
	1. Discussed options with pt, who insisted on further evals in hopes of getting out of Navy.  Informed pt of role of medical services is not to evade obligation.
	2. At this time, command does not support routine admin separation.
	3.  Will continue to follow pt., offering supportive counseling.
	4.  Consult only per pt for worsening suicidal ideation. 

010919:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0530 on 010919 from USS SEATTLE AOE-3 at Leonardo, NJ.

020206:	Applicant missed movement of USS SEATTLE AOE-3 at Norfolk, VA.

020321:	Applicant returned to military control at 2020 on 020321, at TPU Norfolk, VA (182 days).

020517:	Applicant discharged.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020517 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than 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 (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

The Applicant sends documentation of his diagnosed adjustment disorder in support of his request for an upgrade to the characterization of his discharge.  When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  The NDRB does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition, the implied incorrect diagnosis, nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s misconduct.  In fact, the NDRB sees no connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and his medical condition.  The mere presence of an adjustment disorder is not a bar to Naval Service.  The Applicant’s service was characterized appropriately.  Relief is not warranted.

Although not specifically requested by the Applicant, the Board conducted a review of his discharge to determine whether it was otherwise proper and equitable.  In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  As such, the Board presumed that the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial; that the Applicant had the elements of the offenses for which he was charged fully explained by counsel; that the Applicant admitted guilt to the offenses; and that the Applicant had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The board found no impropriety in his discharge.  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.  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 29, effective 
11 Jul 2000 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B.  A punitive discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days) and Article 87 (missing movement).

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

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

E.  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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