ex-SA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20091103
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20030530 - 20030611  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20030612	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20040116	Highest Rank/Rate:  SA
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   00 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  63
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  1.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)	OTA:  1.67 (1)
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “MILPERSMAN 1910-122”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed
Related to Military Service:
	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	

Related to Post-Service Period:
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, 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.	Applicant seeks upgrade to obtain VA benefits to include the Post 9-11 GI Bill.
2.	Applicant contends his personality disorder developed while in service and was worsened by the poor treatment he received from his command.
3.	Applicant contends his discharge was based solely on one performance evaluation, which was biased due to his personality disorder condition.

Decision

Date:  20101220		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified two decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of propriety and equity.  The Applicant’s record of service did not contain any negative NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, UCMJ Article 15 commanding officer nonjudicial punishments, or trials by court-martial.  The Applicant’s medical record did contain documentation of a mental health authority (Balboa Naval Hospital) diagnosis of the Applicant with Adjustment Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder, which resulted from his hospital admission (4-6 Jan 2004) due to his attempted suicide/suicidal ideations, including razor blade cuts to his left wrist.  Based on the medical diagnosis and recommendation for administrative separation, his command administratively processed  for separation from the Navy.  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant exercised or waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

The Applicant did not submit any documentation in support of his issues in requesting an upgrade to his discharge.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to obtain VA benefits to include the Post 9-11 GI Bill.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits as the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his personality disorder developed while in service and was worsened by the poor treatment he received from his command.  The NDRB conducted an exhaustive review of the Applicant’s service and medical records.  The Board determined that the Applicant’s first referral to medical occurred on 7 Dec 2003, approximately 6 months into his enlistment, after his work center supervisor noticed him to be exhibiting signs of depression.  In the medical report, the doctor diagnosed the Applicant with adjustment disorder, with no apparent evidence of personality disorder, based on statements made by the Applicant and his work section Leading Petty Officer.  The Applicant told the doctor that there was “too much conformity in the Navy” and being in the Navy aboard ship made him feel like a “caged animal.”  The doctor concluded his report by stating there was no need to prescribe medications, that the Applicant had no suicidal or homicidal intentions, and that he was fit for full duty.  The records indicated that in late December 2003 while on leave, the Applicant was diagnosed by his family doctor as having depression and was given a prescription for Lexapro.  The following month, the Applicant was seen outside of the medical department holding his left wrist, which was bleeding.  The Applicant told medical personnel “he didn’t care anymore” and that he had cut his wrist after disassembling a personal razor.  The Applicant was escorted to the emergency department, which, after initial assessment and care, referred him for mental health evaluation, resulting in a two-day admission to Naval Medical Center San Diego (Balboa Hospital).  Balboa Mental Health diagnosed the Applicant with Adjustment Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder and recommended his separation from the service.  Though the Board could not find any negative NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) counseling within his 7-month record of service, the Comments on Performance (Block 43) section of his only Evaluation and Counseling Report on record stated the Applicant “was unable to adapt and support the Navy Core Values, HONOR, COURAGE, and COMMITMENT.  His immaturity and refusal to adapt resulted in numerous counseling sessions and wasted man-hours.”

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial, credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  Since the Applicant provided no documentation to verify or substantiate his claim and the records did not contain any information to question the presumption, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was based solely on one performance evaluation, which was biased due to his personality disorder condition.  Though the Applicant’s administrative separation package was not available for the Board’s review, the DD-214 did list “Personality Disorder” as the Narrative Reason for Separation in Block 28, which was congruent with the documents contained within the Applicant’s medical records and in accordance with the applicable sections within the U.S. Navy Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  The Board did note that the Separation Authority listed in Block 25 of the DD-214, MILPERSMAN 1910-120, is incorrect.  As mentioned in the Issue 2 decision above, although the Board could not find any negative NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) counseling within his 7-month record of service, Block 43 of his only Evaluation and Counseling Report on record stated the Applicant “was unable to adapt and support the Navy Core Values, HONOR, COURAGE, and COMMITMENT.  His immaturity and refusal to adapt resulted in numerous counseling sessions and wasted man-hours.”  Additionally, the observed evaluation marks of the Applicant on his performance included “1.0 (below standards)” marks in the following categories: Quality of Work, Military Bearing/Character, Personal Job Accomplishment/Initiative, and Teamwork.  He received a “3.0 (Meets Standards)” in Professional Knowledge and Command Organizational Climate/Equal Opportunity.  These markings resulted in an overall trait average (OTA) of 1.67, based on a 5.0 scale, which is considered well below standards.  When a service member completes their obligated service, they normally rate an Honorable characterization of service if their cumulative OTA is greater than 2.49.  Furthermore, MILPERSMAN section 1910-302 states the quality of service “shall be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty; generally, characterization will be based on the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment.”  After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation, the Board found that the Applicant’s discharge from the Navy was completed in accordance with the provisions of the MILPERSMAN and determined that this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service and  record entries, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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