ex-LTJG, USN
ND07-00079

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20061026 				Characterization Received:  
Narrative Reason:  PERSONALITY DISORDER 		Authority:  BUPERS ORDER 2637

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:    
			Narrative Reason change to: completion of required service
Applicant’s Issues:	1. Did not have a personality disorder
			2. Privacy rights were violated

Decision

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .	
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  PERSONALITY DISORDER.

Date:  20070927	 	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  Civilian Counsel

Discussion

Issue 1 ().  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority on 20021010.  Presumably, that diagnosis was correct at the time.  The Applicant’s reliance on a subsequent evaluation that questioned the initial diagnosis, does not demonstrate that the initial diagnosis was incorrect.  On its face, the second evaluation indicated that the contemporaneous record and observations of the Applicant’s Commanding Officers supported the initial diagnosis, and that the second evaluation was based on the Applicant’s recent performance of shore duties in which he had “not been assigned challenging tasks.”  The Applicant’s reliance on provisions of the MILPERSMAN is also misplaced.  Officers serve at the pleasure of the President.  Separation of officers for cause is regulated by the SECNAVINST 1920.6 series.  Applicant’s discharge process was in accordance with the version of that regulation in effect at the time.  The record supports the conclusion that the Applicant demonstrated unsatisfactory leadership due to a personality disorder, diagnosed on the basis of his own statements and observed behavior when faced with a short notice deployment to combat.  
 
Issue 2 ().  The Applicant’s claim that his privacy rights were violated is not supported by the evidence.  The Applicant self-referred to the emergency room with suicidal ideation, failed to contract for safety, and was referred via command escort for mental health evaluation.  The attending physician’s documented assessment and follow-up plan explicitly referenced a future conference with the Applicant’s Department Head and fiancé.  The Applicant’s observed behavior in light of the command’s operational requirements were directly relevant to the evaluator’s determination of the Applicant’s condition and ability to carry out expected duties, and the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that the evaluator violated any of the Applicant’s privacy rights in obtaining information relevant to his diagnosis and treatment. 

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that 

. 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19950227 - 19950724  		Active:   	19950728 - 19960903  
	USNR (NROTC)	19960904 – 20000512 COG
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Commission: 20000513		Type of Commission:  PERMANENT	Date of Discharge:  20031014
Length of Service:  03  Yrs  05  Mths  02  Dys	Lost Time:  Days UA:    Days Confined:  
Education Level:  16	Type of Degree:  BA	Age at Commission:  	AFQT:  80	Highest Grade:  LTJG
Final Officer’s Fitness Reports were available to the Board for review.	Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  NAVY EFFICIENCY RIBBON, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

20000513:	Applicant accepted commission as an Ensign in the United States Naval Reserve.

20020524:	Applicant appointed to permanent rank of Lieutenant (junior grade).

20020905:	Applicant reported to USS MOUNT WHITNEY (LCC/JCC 20).

20021008:	Medical Record:  Reason for visit:  Referred to Psychiatry Department by Emergency Room, for suicidal ideation without plan or intent to harm self, depression for up to 3 ½ years.
	Assessment:  Adjustment Disorder and Depressed Mood, rule out other mood disorders.  Dependent and narcissistic traits.
	Plan:  Fit for duty – home with fiancé.  RTC for conference with Department Head and fiancé on 20021010. 

20021010:	Medical Record:  Reason for visit:  Follow up to emergency room visit of 20021008.  
	Diagnosis:  Axis I:  Adjustment disorder NOS chronic.  Axis II:  Personality disorder not otherwise specified with avoidant, dependent and narcissistic traits.
	Recommendation:  Expeditious administrative separation due to personality disorder and risk of self harm.

20021108:	Commanding Officer, USS MOUNT WHITNEY, recommended to Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that Applicant be processed for administrative separation for personality disorder.  
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents]

20021110:	Applicant TAD to Amphibious Group TWO pending resolution of administrative separation recommendation.

20030425:	Commander, Amphibious Group TWO, concurred with CO, USS MOUNT WHITNEY recommendation that Applicant be administratively separated.  

20030127:	Chief of Naval Personnel notified Applicant of initiation of administrative separation as a probationary officer.
	[Extracted from CHNAVPERS ltr of 20030506]

20030210:	Applicant submitted request to be released from active duty.
	[Extracted from CHNAVPERS ltr of 20030506]

20030414:	Applicant acknowledged receipt of notification of administrative separation processing.
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents]

20030424:	Medical Record:  Reason for visit:  Self referred for second opinion regarding his suitability for service in context of previous diagnosis of personality disorder with recommendation for expeditious administrative separation.
	Diagnosis:  Avoidant and narcissistic personality traits.
	Recommendation:  (1) Presently deemed psychiatrically fit and suitable for full duty, including overseas and operational duty.  (2) If he has future difficulties with stress tolerance, interpersonal  conflicts, immature behavior, or substandard performance - he may be referred back to psychiatry for reevaluation regarding his diagnosis and fitness/suitability for duty.  Such difficulties would tend to support the diagnosis of a personality disorder, and provide a pattern of behavior that may support the finding of unsuitability.

20030424:	Applicant submitted rebuttal statement contesting accuracy of personality disorder diagnosis and requested to remain on active duty.

20030425:	Commander, Amphibious Group TWO, forwarded Applicant’s statement to Commander, Naval Personnel Command, and recommended that Applicant be administratively separated.  

20030506:	Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) that Applicant’s 20030210 request to be released from active duty be denied and that Applicant be separated by reason of personality disorder with characterization of service as 

20030905:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) denied Applicant’s 20030210 request to be released from active duty, and approved Applicant’s discharge by reason of personality disorder, with characterization of service as .

20031013:	Applicant discharged this date.		

Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

Related to Military Service:	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:  	
	Employment:  			Finances:  			Education: 		
	Health/Medical Records:  		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:  	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
	
Additional Statements From Applicant:  	From Representative:    Other Documentation (Describe)  Correspondence with United States Senate; Medical Records release authorization; excerpts from online GMO Manual

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until 14 December 2005 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  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.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  

Board Membership:  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