ex-MMFA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100611
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)	20020920 - 20030824  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20030825	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20050304	Highest Rank/Rate:  MM3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   09 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  95
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA: 20050111-20050112, 1 day.  CONF: 

NJP:  

- 20040818:	Article  (Failure to obey order), 5 specifications 
	Awarded: Oral Admonition  CCU (30 days)  (to E-3)   Suspended:  

- 20040922:	Article  (Failure to obey order), 2 specifications
	Awarded: Oral Admonition  EPD   (to E-2)   Suspended:   

SCM:  		SPCM:  		CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20040818:	For Commanding Officer NJP imposed on 20040818, violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order, dereliction of duty).
           
           - 20050204:    For Personality Disorder.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “20050111-20050112”

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 a discharge upgrade to obtain VA benefits.
2.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper and should have been based on medical reasons (migraine headaches).

Decision

Date:  20111020		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

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 one decisional issue 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 equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings and two  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 7 specifications).  The Applicant’s service records also indicate he received waivers for illegal discharge of a BB gun (May 2001) and disorderly conduct while enlisted in the DEP (December 2002).  The service records also indicate the Applicant was removed from the Nuclear Power Propulsion Training program on 23 Sep 2004 after having received a second NJP within less than five weeks after his first NJP.  The Applicant’s medical records indicate he was referred for medical and mental health evaluation, on 3 Feb 2005, after an incident that occurred aboard ship involving an argument with a petty officer after which the Applicant exhibited a suicidal ideation.  In the course of the evaluation, the Applicant admitted to being diagnosed with ADHD as a child and seeing a psychiatrist at boot camp for anger management.  He also admitted to multiple episodes of fire starting in adolescence.  Upon conclusion, the physician diagnosed the Applicant with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and Personality Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) with antisocial and borderline traits.  The Applicant was found fit for full duty, but recommended for administrative separation as he “manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior that is so severe that the member’s ability to function effectively in the Naval environment is significantly impaired and interferes with the member’s performance of duty.”  The Applicant received a follow-up mental health evaluation on 26 Feb 2005 after a fellow shipmate witnessed the Applicant attempt to initiate cutting his wrist (suicide) with a steak knife in her kitchen.  After evaluating the Applicant, the physician documented the following diagnosis: Mental Disorder due to headaches, resolved, and Personality Disorder NOS with antisocial and borderline traits.  The physician continued by stating the Applicant “denied symptoms c/w any AXIS Disorder and this physician is yet to understand how he could not walk from one room to the next to ask for help but was able to run from friends when they notified the MAs of his suicidality.  His behavior is consistent with his previously diagnosed Personality Disorder (3 Feb 2005), as his behavior seems to have been driven by his need for attention/manipulation of others.  Nonetheless, he should be offered a complete neurological evaluation for his headaches.  Should such behavior continue, he understands that he will likely be separated from the Navy.”  Based on the Applicant’s history of misconduct, the substantial medical and non-medical evidence of a personality disorder of such severity as to interfere with his performance, and in concurrence with the Medical Officer’s recommendations, the Applicant’s command processed him for administrative separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing (for Pattern of Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, and Personality Disorder) using the  procedure on 28 Feb 2005, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 4 Mar 2005 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain VA benefits.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and should have been based on medical reasons (migraine headaches).  Per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN), when separation processing is warranted for any reason in addition to personality disorder (convenience of the government), dual or multiple processing is required.  Therefore, separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted for any other reason (e.g., member meets minimum criteria for misconduct processing).  Additionally, DOD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons, such as medical.  The Applicant was processed for administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder.  The Applicant’s misconduct (two NJPs, one Page 13 Retention Warning, and a 30 hour period of unauthorized absence from 11-12 Jan 2005), which did warrant separation, is clearly documented in the service record.  In other words, the Applicant should have been discharged for either Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) or Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).  However, since the Applicant had no documented misconduct within his new assignment aboard USS Nassau and his performance continued to be hindered by his personality disorder, his commanding officer, as the Separation Authority, determined that the Applicant should be separated for Personality Disorder.  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.  After careful consideration of all the evidence, the Board found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit.  Accordingly, the Board determined that the Applicant’s separation was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   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 for additional information.

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