ex-FR, USN
ND07-00490

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20070306 	Characterization Received:  
Narrative Reason:  PERSONALITY DISORDER Authority:  MILPERSMAN 3620200

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:  
			Narrative Reason change to: 
Applicant’s Issues:	1. Entry level separation unfounded
			2. Material change in policy 
                                            3. Incorrect diagnosis of Personality Disorder 
                                            4. Not afforded time to demonstrate performance 

Decision

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

Date:  20071101  					Location:  Washington D.C. 	

Discussion

Issue 1 and 2 ():  Applicant contends that his characterization of service as Entry Level Separation was unfounded and based on a preexisting medical condition that he suffered from the age of eight to fourteen.  He is requesting that it be upgraded based on a material change in policy.  By regulation, members notified of a recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service.  Unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a service member’s performance or conduct that would merit an honorable characterization, an uncharacterized discharge is generally considered the most appropriate characterization of a member’s service.  The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than one month in the military to warrant a change of discharge to honorable.  Additionally, there was no justification for upgrading the Applicant’s characterization of discharge based on a material change in the law. 

Issue 3 (Propriety):  The Applicant further contends that he was incorrectly diagnosed, by the Navy, as having a Personality Disorder. His claim and request for the narrative reason be changed to Adjustment Disorder is based on a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder,
made by his psychologist, one year prior to Applicant’s enlistment into Navy.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The Applicant does not deny that he was diagnosed as having a mental disorder prior to entering the service and at the time of his discharge from the Naval service.  He was diagnosed, by qualified clinical psychologist, as possessing an Antisocial Personality Disorder that required military separation.  The psychologist also noted that the Applicant had pre-service suicidal behavior and did not wish to continue training in the Navy.  The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated for a Personality Disorder.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  

Issue 4 ():  The Applicant argues that the command did not give him sufficient time to demonstrate his ability to perform assigned task.  In reviewing the service record entries, the NDRB did note a technical impropriety in the Applicant’s separation processing.  The psychologist recommended separation based on personality disorder and suicide behavior pre-service.  Since the provider did not specifically state that the member was a danger to self or others, the member should have been given an administrative counseling warning as required by MILPERSMAN 3620220, and afforded an opportunity to correct any deficits in behavior or performance.  The commanding officer indicated that he authorized the separation based on the psychological evaluation and a belief that any further attempts to train the Applicant would have been counterproductive.  The commands failure to give the Applicant an administrative counseling prior to discharging him constituted a procedural error.  The NDRB is convinced that this error was not prejudicial to the Applicant.  There is little doubt to the NDRB that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made and therefore, relief based upon this error is not warranted.

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: NONE		Active:   
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19930930		Years Contracted:  		Date of Discharge:  19940915
Length of Service:  Active:  00  Yrs  00  Mths  23  Dys	Inactive:  00  Yrs  10  Mths  23  Dys	Lost Time:  Days UA:    Days Confined:  
Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  49	Highest Rank/Rate:  FR
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):	Performance:  N/A	Behavior:  N/A	 OTA:  N/A 
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL

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

199408248:	Medical Record:  Reason for visit:  Screened by NAFMET Phase I and being referred to NAFMET Phase II based on HOI scores (11.42).
	R/O alcohol dependency, EPTE, R/O antisocial personality disorder, EPTE, R/O attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, EPTE.
	Recommendation:  Referred to NAFMET Phase III for further evaluation.

19940908:	Medical Record:  Reason for visit:  N-AFMET evaluation and recommendation
	Diagnosis:  Antisocial personality disosrder
	Recommendation:  Personality disorder requirig military separation.

Discharge Process

Date Notified:					19940908
Reason for Discharge:	 - 
Least Favorable Characterization:	

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:		19930908
Rights Elected at Notification:
	Consult with Counsel			
	Obtain Copies of Documents		
	Submit Statement(s) (date)			
	Administrative Board			
	GCMCA review				

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):	
Separation Authority (date):	COMMANDING OFFICER, RECRUIT TRAINING COMMAND, GREAT LAKES (19940912)
              Reason for discharge directed:	 - 
              Characterization directed:	
Date Applicant Discharged:	19940915

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) 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 23 June 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 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