ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080416
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to: SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20000621 - 20000711  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000712	Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension	Date of Discharge:  20001020
Length of Service:    Years    Months   09  Days	  Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  73
Highest Rank/Rate:  SN	Evaluation Marks:  Performance: NFIR	Behavior: NFIR	OTA:  NFIR
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  

NJP:       SCM:          SPCM:	     CC:	     Retention Warnings:  

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  
Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
Additional Statements From Applicant:  		From Representation:  		From Member of Congress:  

Other Documentation (Describe):   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective 27 March 2000 until 
13 August 2001, Article 1910-122, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Denies suffering from a personality disorder and a ‘probable personality disorder’ is not a diagnosis.
2.  Command abused the system in its use of “personality disorder.”
3.  Entitled to an uncharacterized based on 3 months of active duty; general discharge not proper.

Decision

Date:  20081016	           Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

:  ()  .  The Applicant’s counsel contends the Applicant was not suffering from a personality disorder prior to, at the time of, or subsequent to his separation from the Navy.  He further contends that a “probable personality disorder” is not a diagnosis of personality disorder by any known standards of care guidelines and the command abused the system here.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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.  Based on a review of the medical record of 28 September 2000, the Staff Psychologist at Branch Medical Clinic, NTTC performed a psychological evaluation on the Applicant and recommended expeditious administrative separation on the basis of a suicide risk.  The record reflects the Applicant was referred to the provider at the beginning of the week when his mother called and expressed concerns of possible suicide after speaking with the Applicant on the phone.  The provider noted the diagnosis had changed from ”probable mood disorder” to “probable personality disorder” based on the Applicant’s symptoms and family history. 

 Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910- 122, members may be processed for separation based on a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder when the members ability to function effectively is significantly impaired, and the impairment interferes with the performance of one’s duties or poses a threat to the safety and well being of the member and/or others.  Based on a review of the record, medical documentation, and the NDRB’s senior medical officer opinion dated 15 October 2008, the NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s counsel that a diagnosis of “probable Personality disorder” was not a definitive diagnosis of personality disorder and therefore, the requirements for administrative separation due to personality were not met.  The record reflects the Commanding Officer, Naval Technical Training Center, Meridan relied on the staff psychologist’s opinion in making a decision to discharge the Applicant as evidenced by the Commanding Officer’s Transmittal letter of 10 January 2001.  The NDRB determined that the commanding officer’s reliance on this inadequate diagnosis was erroneous, but not an abuse of the system as alleged by the Applicant’s counsel.  Nonetheless, in light of the aforementioned evidence the NDRB determined that an impropriety did exist and voted to change the narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority” as requested by the Applicant through counsel.  
  
:  ()  .   The NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s counsel that an “Uncharacterized” characterization as outlined in MILPERSMAN 1910-308, is most appropriate based on the fact the member was on continuous active duty for less than 180 days when he was notified of an administrative separation; there was no evidence of unusual performance or conduct that would justify and “Honorable”, nor was there evidence of poor performance or misconduct to justify a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” or an “Under Other Than Honorable” characterization.  Based on the foregoing, the NDRB determined a change to the characterization was appropriate.    

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found  

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 or is referred to a court martial 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 other medical related reasons.  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 special 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.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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