ex-MM3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100716
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)	20050524 - 20050628  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20050629	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20061109	Highest Rank/Rate:  MM3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   10 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  82
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (2)	Behavior:  3.0 (2)	OTA:  3.00
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:

	  “PERSONALITY DISORDER”
	
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 16, effective 24 July 2006 until 28 May 2008, 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 discharge and RE code upgrades to reenlist in the U. S. Armed Forces.
2.	Applicant contends his in-service diagnosis of personality disorder was in error.
3.	Applicant states personal stressors caused him to lie about having suicidal thoughts, which led to his discharge.

Decision
Date:  20111013		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 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 did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, commanding officer nonjudicial punishment (NJP), or trial by courts-martial.  The records did reveal that the Applicant was referred for a mental health examination during Nuclear Power Prototype Training after he had cut his left arm with a soda can top.  On 25 Oct 2006, the staff psychologist evaluated the Applicant and provided the following comments in his report: “19 year old male, failing academically in nuclear power prototype training.  Self-reports a severe history of anger and poor self-control in high school to include: hitting himself with a fist, thoughts of cutting himself, and aggression fantasies.”  The Applicant was diagnosed with: AXIS I – Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct occupational problem; AXIS II – Personality Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) with immature and dependent traits (existed prior to entry).  The physician found him fit for duty, but unqualified for the nuclear field/submarine duty and unsuitable for further military service.  He recommended an expeditious administrative separation due to an ongoing risk of the Applicant harming himself or others.  Based on the information available and the medical officer’s recommendation for expeditious separation, the Applicant’s command processed him for administrative separation in accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 30 Oct 2006, 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 9 Nov 2006 with an Honorable discharge due to Personality Disorder.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks discharge and RE code upgrades to reenlist in the U. S. Armed Forces.  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into any of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to reenlistment codes.  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.  In particular, the Applicant should take his post-service psychological evaluation to a recruiter to demonstrate that he no longer suffers from a Personality Disorder.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his in-service diagnosis of personality disorder was in error.  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 Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s service and medical records and found that the Applicant was experiencing academic problems while undergoing nuclear power prototype training.  After cutting his left arm with a soda can top, he was referred to mental health.  The physician diagnosed the Applicant with an Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct occupational problem and Personality Disorder NOS with immature and dependent traits that existed prior to entry into service.  The physician recommended expeditious administrative separation of the Applicant based on an “ongoing risk of harming himself or others.”

In his request for review of discharge, the Applicant provided a copy of a post-service psychological evaluation (Jul 2008).  This post-service evaluation does not change the fact that the Applicant received an in-service diagnosis of a Personality Disorder for which he was discharged.  After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, to include the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined the Applicant’s Honorable discharge from the Navy due to Personality Disorder was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the orders and directives in effect at the time of his discharge.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant states personal stressors caused him to lie about having suicidal thoughts that led to his discharge.  The Board conducted an exhaustive review of the records and found no evidence to support, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence to indicate, he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as the Navy Chaplain or Medical or Mental Health professionals.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  However, all members of the Naval Services are expected to uphold the high standards of conduct as evidenced in our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, regardless of the environment or mission in which assigned.  After careful consideration, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and 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,  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 .  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