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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-CTT1, USN
Docket No. ND06-00983

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060725.  The Applicant requested the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Completion of Service.”  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant designated Civilian Counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.  During the Applicant’s testimony before the Board, the Applicant indicated, through counsel, that she desired the narrative reason for separation be changed to “Completion of Service” or something that does not “stigmatize” the Applicant.  

Decision

A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20070425.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, impropriety in the Applicant’s discharge was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-164, Separation Code “JFF.”

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

After consideration of the Applicant’s testimony and review of the petition submitted by the Applicant through counsel, the Board determined the Applicant’s issues as follows:

1.  (Propriety) The Applicant did not have personality disorder.
2.  (Propriety) The Applicant was not offered sufficient time to correct her deficiencies subsequent to the counseling of 910701.
3.  (Equity) Given the totality of the Applicant’s service, discharge by reason of personality disorder was inequitable.
4.  (Equity) Relief is warranted in view of the Applicant’s post-service conduct and achievements. 

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 for service ending July 26, 1991
Petition from McCormack & Associates Attorneys and Counselors at Law, dtd July 19, 2006 (13 pgs)
Excerpts from Service Record (53 pgs)
Psychological Evaluation with Curriculum Vitae from, T_ A. P_ PhD, dtd April 15, 2006 (8 pgs)
College Transcript, dtd May 29, 2006 (5 pgs)
Letter from President, Harford Community College, dtd May 26, 2006
Letter from President, Harford Community College, dtd January 10, 2006
Letter of Congratulation for National Dean’s List, 2004-2005
Phi Theta Kappa Congratulation Letter for Dean’s List 2004-2005, undated
Character Statement from S_ A. O_, Principal, Roye-Williams Elementary School, dtd March 15, 2006
Letter from D_ H_, dtd February 28, 2006 (2 pgs)
Character Statement from R_ D_ S_, dtd March 2, 2006
Character Statement from SFC T_ T_, USA, dtd February 24, 2006
Character Statement from H_ M. G_, undated
Character Statement from G_ R. V_, dtd February 23, 2006
Character Statement from R_ J. C_, dtd February 27, 2006
Character Statement from S_ W. R_, dtd February 23, 2006 (2 pgs)
Character Statement from P_ S_ B_, dtd February 25, 2006
Character Statement from D_ R. B_, LTC (Ret), USA, dtd February 25, 2006 
Certificate of Recognition for Fifth Grade Farewell Celebration Committee during 2004-2005 school year
Certificate of Recognition for volunteer work in Mrs. P_ classroom during 2002-2003 school year
Certificate of Recognition for PTA Treasurer during 2001-2002 school year
Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Voluntary Service, dtd March 10, 1999
Protestant Women of the Chapel Special Recognition Award, dtd January 20, 1999
Field Artillerymen Association Award, dtd January 3, 1996
Wikipedia article regarding “Honorable Order of Molly Pitcher” (2 pgs)
Unofficial student transcript from Harford Community College, retrieved April 23, 2007 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19810526 - 19811111	COG
	Active:   USN	19811112 - 19861109	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19861110		Date of Discharge:  19910726

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  08  17  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):  

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  23 

Years Contracted:  4 (15-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  CTT1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.8 (6)		Behavior:  3.7 (6)		OTA:  3.83

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Second Good Conduct Award for period ending 89NOV11, Overseas Service Ribbon (4), National Defense Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Letter of Commendation

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

HONORABLE/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

861110:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years. 

881216:	Branch Medical Clinic, NSGA Northwest.  Applicant presents with situational depression, her 33 year old sister attempted suicide two weeks ago.  Assessment:  Situational Depression.  Plan:  SIQ until Monday.  Counseling with Ms. M_ for coping.  Follow with MC B_ M_ Monday.

910625:	Psychiatric Evaluation by Department of Army, Headquarters, United States Army Medical Department Activity Augsburg:
	This 28 year old female service member presents with a history of depression for several months, which has become worse since her husband’s PCS move.  She describes frequent crying spells, extreme frustration with her situation, and an inability to concentrate on her work, which has led to decreased productivity.  She is focused almost exclusively on her concerns for her 6 months old child, including anxiety about arranging for child care and worry over his potential medical problems, i.e., his apparent small head size and the possibility of neurosurgery.  She finds the demands of motherhood and single-parenting to be overwhelming at times, and does not know how she can integrate her full-time military job with her needs to be a parent.  She says that she recognizes now that it was a mistake for her to have extended her enlistment, but that she had not known then how difficult and all-encompassing a task it would be to be a single parent.  In her darkest moments of frustration and worry she has even considered suicide, but says that she has no real desire or plan to commit suicide.  (She is at increased risk for thinking about suicide as a solution to her problems because an older sister made a serious attempt at suicide several years ago.)
	Past History:  Significant for early trauma in childhood, and for a potentially fatal assault as an adolescent, both experiences leading to a decreased sense of trust in others and predisposing her to extraordinary dependency needs in time of crisis.
	Mental Status Exam: In addition to the information on DA Form 3822-R, the examination is significant for markedly distressed and depressed mood, and inflexibility of thinking.  Also, this patient demonstrates a limited repertoire of coping skills and does not appear to be able to utilize insight.  She denies current suicidal plans and is able to give a firm no-suicide promise.
	
Impression: 	1. Personality Disorder NOS
			2. Adjustment Disorder with Work Inhibition.
	
Recommendation: It is unlikely that her symptoms or problems with work will remit or change in the presence of continued stressors, primarily that of single parenthood.  This service member’s disorder is of such severity as to render the member incapable of serving adequately in the Naval Service.  Therefore it would be in the best interest of Command and herself for an administrative separation at this time, based on the appropriate Navy regulations.	
				 
910701:	Counseling by Commanding Officer:  
“1. This service record entry is being made to document serious deficiencies in your performance and conduct and to describe attempts by this command over an extended period of time to correct those deficiencies.

2.  Since your return from maternity leave in February 1991, you have demonstrated radical mood swings, inconsistent and deteriorating job performance, loss of motivation for continued personal and professional growth, and increasingly frequent absence from work.  The result of this behavior is that your value to the Navy has greatly deteriorated and that you are now a burden to this command.

3.  Attempts at rehabilitation and correction of these deficiencies actually began prior to your return from maternity leave when you contacted CTACS R_ in January 1991 stating your strong desire to be released from active duty before EAOS and requesting information to achieve that end.  When, in your subsequent visit to CTACS R_ the following day, you were advised that your circumstances did not make you eligible for early release, you became very agitated and stated to CTACS R_ that you would take illegal drugs or claim homosexuality in order to be thrown out of the Navy.

4.  Immediately after your return from maternity leave, you began to pursue in earnest any means to be separated early.  In March 1991, you submitted a request for hardship discharge under the provisions of MILPERSMAN 3620210.  I disapproved that request because in my judgment you failed to meet the criteria.  At that time you were strongly encouraged by me to seek professional counseling to strengthen your coping skills, and you were further advised that you would receive positive command support and that, within the reasonable bounds of mission accomplishment and military duty, your personal needs would be accommodated.

5.  To my knowledge, you did not continue with professional counseling.  Within your chain of command, you have been repeatedly counseled by your division officer, department head, command senior chief, administrative officer and commanding officer.  In all cases, there was effectively no success because of your unwillingness or inability to reconcile your personal difficulties with your military duties.  You have been disruptive at work due to your emotional outbursts, distracting conversations with juniors regarding your early release, frequent requirements to be absent, unavailability to substitute for watchstanders, and the totally disproportionate amount of management and leadership time your chain of command must devote to you in its efforts at rehabilitation.  Reasonable opportunity has been extended to you over the past five months to correct these deficiencies and return to your former excellent level of performance, but I regret to say that has not happened.

6.  On 14 June 1991, during a command visit by Fleet Master Chief G_, you confided in him that you may attempt suicide in order to get out of the Navy.  This provocative statement, when considered together with your history of behavior, caused me to determine that you were sufficiently unstable and confused to be an unacceptable [sic] risk for access to special intelligence.  I suspended your security clearance and began the procedures to have a psychiatric examination performed on you.  The results of that exam and my own observation of you lead me to conclude that you are incompatible with the naval service.  Therefore, it is my intention to process you for separation at the convenience of the government based on personality disorder.

7. Your rights will be fully explained to you via separate correspondence.”	
910701:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general by reason of convenience of the government, personality disorder as evidenced by inability to adapt to the military regimen and lack of insight and motivation to make the necessary positive changes to become a more productive sailor.

910701:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Applicant indicated she did not object to the separation.

910708:	Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Security Group Activity Augsburg Germany, forwarded the administrative discharge package to BUPERS indicating he transferred the Applicant to TPU, Philadelphia, PA on 19910715 after directing her honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government, personality disorder.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “[Applicant’s] separation from the naval service stems from not only her diagnosed personality disorder, but also from her lack of motivation to make positive changes in her life that would assist her in becoming a more productive member of the naval service.  It is felt that she can no longer be counted on to be capable of meeting required standards of duty, performance and discipline.  She is considered not capable of demonstrating potential for further useful naval service.  This command is small, manned with just 50 sailors and there is great potential for deterioration of good order and discipline.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19910726 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 equitable, but not proper (B and C).  

On 19910625 the Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and her discharge was recommended by competent medical authority.  However, when expeditious discharge is not recommended by competent medical authority, members must be counseled on their performance and conduct, issued a retention warning and given an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies.  On 19910701, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer informed the Applicant he was processing her for separation by reason of personality disorder.  The Board found that the Applicant was not given a proper retention warning.  The Board also found that this error in processing for separation was prejudicial to the Applicant because there was substantial doubt as to whether, had the Applicant been properly counseled and warned, the discharge would have remained the same had the error not been made.  When the NDRB determines an applicant’s discharge was improper, the NDRB attempts to determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the discharge authority.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether a different specific reason for discharge was supported by the facts of the case.  Therefore, the Board voted to change the Applicant’s narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  Relief granted on the grounds that the Applicant was not discharged in accordance with procedures prescribed by governing regulations at the time of discharge.  

The Board did not grant relief on the issues raised by the Applicant, for reasons set forth as follows:

Issue 1.  The Applicant contends that she did not have a personality disorder.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 19910625.  The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to overturn the presumption that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder.  Neither the documents provided by the Applicant nor the testimony before the Board demonstrated that the Applicant’s diagnosis was incorrect.  Relief denied on this basis. 

Issue 2.  The Applicant contends that she was not given sufficient time to correct her deficiencies.  Per the discussion above, the evidence of record shows that the Applicant was not issued a retention warning for her diagnosed personality disorder.  Therefore, the Board found this issue moot and did not provide relief on this basis.

Issue 3.  The Applicant contends that, given her totality of service, a discharge by reason of personality disorder was inequitable.  Discharges by reason of personality disorder are considered neither punitive nor stigmatizing.  Therefore, the Applicant’s contention that her discharge is inequitable due to her honorable service is without merit.  Relief denied on this basis.

Issue 4.  The Applicant contends that her discharge is inequitable due to post-service conduct.  The Board commends that Applicant’s community involvement, spirit of volunteerism and dedication to self-improvement through education.  The Board does not normally consider changes of narrative reason due to post-service conduct.  Relief denied on this basis.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The Applicant has exhausted her opportunities for review by the NDRB.  The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning further review of her case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 14, effective 
22 Dec 90 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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 503, Equity.

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. 

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