ex-FN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100330
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)	19971224 - 19980121  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19980122	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  19981026	Highest Rank/Rate:  FN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   05 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  36
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Period of UA: 19981006 - 19981013 (7 days – terminated by surrender)  

Period of 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:

	  “(7) 19981006-19981013”
	
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), Change 21, effective 1 September 1998 until 
19 May 99, 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.	Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his discharge in order to gain increased eligibility to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment programs.  

2.	Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his involvement as a witness in an ongoing naval criminal investigation is mitigation to the characterization of service at discharge that he received; as such, Applicant seeks an upgrade to an Honorable characterization of his service.

Decision

Date:  20110513	        	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 NDRB 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 one specific issue for consideration by the NDRB; additionally, the NDRB conducted a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service reflects no NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warnings and no judicial or nonjudicial punishments for any violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The Applicant’s record of service and medical records document that appropriately credentialed mental health care providers diagnosed the Applicant with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Non-Combat Related) and a Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified, with Narcissistic, Borderline, and Anti-Social Features.  The Applicant was determined to be unsuitable for military service as the Personality Disorder was sufficiently severe enough to impair significantly the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environment.  The Applicant’s disorder was considered to not be amenable to effective treatment in the military setting.  It was further determined that, if retained, the Applicant was considered to present a risk for deterioration in functioning and a continuing danger to himself or others.  The treating mental health care providers recommended continued counseling and medication with their diagnosis.  Additionally, the Applicant was determined to be responsible for his actions and that he be held accountable, as required.  

The Applicant was diagnosed also with PTSD, resulting from a physical assault and a developing fear of threats to his life as related to his involvement with an ongoing criminal investigation.  The psychiatric evaluation considered the PTSD diagnosis as a non-contributing factor to the Applicant’s long-standing personality disorder, which pre-existed his military service; not a contributing factor to the Applicant’s inability to function effective in the military environment; and that it did not warrant referral to a Physical Evaluation Board for a determination of disability.  The diagnosis and recommendation for separation was reviewed and approved by the Head, Mental Health Clinic, Great Lakes Naval Base; it was approved as proper and not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another metal disorder and was evidenced by a stable pattern of long duration with an onset that could be traced back to early adulthood.        

On 31 August 1998, the Applicant was recommend for administrative separation from the Naval Service by an appropriately credentialed mental health care provider; he was determined to be a continuing threat to himself and others, but was responsible for his actions, and that his diagnosed condition rendered him unsuitable for further military service.  On 16 September 1998, the Applicant was notified in writing of the command’s proposed recommendation for separation; the basis for discharge was Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder, in accordance with Article 1910-120 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  The basis of discharge was evidenced by the Applicant’s psychiatric evaluation dated 31 August 1998.  The Applicant was further notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible was General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s discharge recommendation; when notified of pending separation proceedings, the Applicant waived his right to consult with qualified legal counsel.  He further waived his right to submit written matters for consideration by the Separation Authority.  Due to the proposed characterization of service and length of service, the Applicant did not warrant an administrative discharge hearing board.  On 25 September 1998, the Applicant was directed to be discharged from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the member incapable of serving adequately in military service, in any capacity, in accordance with Article 1910-122 of the MILPERSMAN.  While processing for separation, the Applicant absented himself from his appointed place of duty, without proper authority, and did remain so absent from 06 October to 13 October 1998; the Applicant’s period of unauthorized absence was terminated by surrendering himself to military authorities aboard Naval Base, Great Lakes.  The Applicant provided no additional documentation to challenge or refute the narrative reason for separation, but provided a detailed statement outlining his recollection of events as mitigating factors that he believes refute the less than fully honorable characterization of his service at discharge.

Non-decisional Issues - The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his discharge in order to gain increased eligibility to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment programs.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans Affairs benefits.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities or to facilitate reenlistment.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the VA.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service and medical records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance.  

(Decisional Issue) () - RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends that his involvement as a witness in an ongoing naval criminal investigation is mitigation to the characterization of service at discharge that he received; as such, Applicant seeks an upgrade to an Honorable characterization of his service.  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 NDRB 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 was evaluated and diagnosed by appropriately credentialed mental health care providers who further determined that the Applicant was a risk to himself and others; accordingly, he warranted expeditious processing for separation and a waiver of the MILPERSMAN requirement for retention counseling.  The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and evaluation and determined that Personality Disorder was the most appropriate narrative reason for discharge.  As such, the NDRB determined no impropriety in the discharge action; the proper narrative reason for separation from the Naval Service was - Convenience of the Government (Personality Disorder).  Accordingly, relief based on propriety is not warranted.         

(Equity)  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his record.  A review of the Applicant’s official service record reveals an ongoing involvement with illegal activities that resulted in a criminal investigation.  The Applicant’s involvement was voluntary and in direct disregard to established regulations and standards of conduct.  When provided an opportunity to participate in the recruiters’ assistance program, the recruiting command requested a cancellation of the additional duty orders and return to his parent command due to his erratic behavior and blatant disregard for regulations.  While processing for administrative separation, the Applicant absented himself from his appointed place of duty without authority for a period of 7 days.  The NDRB determined that a preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful, but that significant negative aspects of his conduct during his service outweighed the positive aspects of his service record; as such, the command was justified in awarding the Applicant a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  The NDRB determined an upgrade to Honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  and medical record entries, additional supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PERSONALITY DISORDER.  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 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