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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-DN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00642

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060308.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  On the DD Form 293, the Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing.  Subsequent to the submission of the application, the Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20070125.  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.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

EQUITY:  Isolated incident in 38 months of service.
PROPRIETY:  No nonjudicial punishments, captain’s masts or “bad counselings.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
List of Documents, undated
Certificate of Recognition, dated May 24, 2000
Certificate of Recognition, dated May 10, 2000
Applicant’s Letter of Commendation from National Naval Dental Center, Bethesda, Maryland, for service from May 1999 to May 2002
Applicant’s Certificate of Acceptance for Enlistment, dated July 7, 1998
Three pages from Applicant’s service record
Applicant’s Certificate of Training, dated May 24, 2000
Applicant’s Blue Chip Award, dated October 26, 2001 with hand-written note on back
Applicant’s Blue Chip Award, dated October 29, 2001
Applicant’s Certificate of Completion, dated July 23, 2002
Applicant’s Certificate of Completion, dated September 5, 2002
Disabled American Veteran’s Certificate of Appreciation, undated
City Council of New York Certificate of Achievement for Academic Excellence, dated June 23
Macy Certificate of Recognition, dated April 27, 1998
Letter to Applicant from C_ M. K_, President, Brooklyn College, dated January 14, 2005
Letter to Applicant from D_ F. W_, Acting Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Brooklyn College, dated November 2, 2005
Applicant’s Certificate of Recognition for Spring 2005
Applicant’s grades from Brooklyn College, printed August 24, 2005
Letter from D_ D_, Acting Director, Learning Center, Brooklyn College, dated November 22, 2005
Applicant’s résumé
Letter of Recommendation, dated June 24, 2003
Letter of Recommendation, dated July 12, 2003
Character reference, dated July 21, 2003
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for period July 16, 2000 to January 15, 2001
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for period July 16, 2000 to July 15, 2001
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for period July 16, 2000 to May 24, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19980707 - 19990706	ELS
		USNR (DEP)	19990726 - 19991004	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19991005		Date of Discharge:  20021226

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  21
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4 (12-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  82

Highest Rate:  DN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.0 (2)			Behavior:  3.0 (2)		OTA:  3.50

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

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

021226:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of personality disorder, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122, SPD Code:  GFX (Board).

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021226 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under 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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board invoked the presumption of regularity.  Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant met the criteria for discharge by reason of personality disorder, that the Applicant was properly notified of her Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively process the Applicant for separation, that the Applicant was afforded all rights which she elected at notification and that the Applicant’s discharge was directed by proper authority.  

The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable because it was based on “one incident” in thirty-eight months.  The Applicant also contends, through her representative, that her discharge is improper because she was never subject to nonjudicial punishment or adverse counselings.  Regarding the Applicant’s issues, the Board invoked the presumption of regularity.  Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted due to significant negative aspects of her conduct or performance and that these aspects outweighed the positive aspects of the her military record.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of 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), 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, 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