ex-CTT2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110207
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20021220 - 20030824  	Active:		20030825 - 20080429  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20080430	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20090320	Highest Rank/Rate:  CTT2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   21 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  89
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  4.0 (1)	Behavior:  4.0 (1)	OTA:  3.43
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	     

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  		SCM:  		SPCM:  		CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20090202:	For your medical condition, being diagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder.  Your present medical condition has not been considered a physical disability; however, it may be a disqualifying factor in determining your suitability for further naval service.”

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “NAVY MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL HUMANITARIAN SERVICE MEDAL JOINT MERITORIOUS UNIT AWARD”
	
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:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant seeks an RE code and discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. 
2.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper and the narrative reason should reflect personality traits versus personality disorder. 
3.	Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20120419		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 equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning for a diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder, but did not contain any commanding officer nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or trial by courts-martial.  The record revealed the Applicant was found not physically qualified for submarine duty during his first enlistment, on or about 20 Apr 2004, due to anxiety.  The psychologist noted that the Applicant, “endorsed a personality structure manifested by social indifference and/or discomfort, lack of close friendships or relationships, strong tendency to engage in isolated activities, and a restricted range of emotionality…patient was administered the MCMI III today, which he completed in approximately 50 minutes.  Results of the test were valid and indicated the presence of a Personality Disorder (Schizoid, Dependent, Avoidant).  His profile was similar to individuals who are socially detached with low self-esteem.  They exhibit indifference, are quiet, and often stay by themselves…the test results also the presence of psychological distress as manifested by apprehension, phobic reactions, indecisiveness, tension, restlessness, and physical discomforts associated with tension.  The profile also indicated an apathetic and dejected mood; feelings of discouragement, guilt, or hopelessness; and a lack of personal initiative.  AXIS I: Diagnosis Deferred, AXIS II: Schizoid, Dependent, Avoidant Personality Traits, Marked R/O Personality Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified), AXIS V: GAF 65-75 (current).”  The psychologist recommended the Applicant not be qualified for transfer to submarine duty and recommended further evaluation to assess for suitability for continued military service.  After several subsequent mental health evaluations (23, 26, 30 Apr 2004), the Applicant was diagnosed as follows: “Psychological testing consistently indicated the presence of mild anxiety and depression.  Although the patient denies classical symptoms of such, suspect that there is a low level of anxiety related to deficits in social skills and social interaction.  AXIS I: Anxiety Disorder NOS (mild); AXIS II: Schizoid, Avoidant, and Dependent Personality Traits (Marked); R/O Personality Disorder.  Patient is psychiatrically fit for general duty and returned to same.  He is not considered psychiatrically fit for submarine duty due to marked personality traits.  He is considered suitable for continued service at the present time.  Although he evidences marked personality traits, he has been able to function effectively to date and been successful in different areas of his life.”  

With periodic follow-up counseling and therapy, the Applicant continued military serve in his designated rating with excellent performance (Evaluation Reports dated: 16 Jul 2006-15 Jun 2007; 16 Jun 2007-15 Mar 2008; 16 Mar 2008-20 Mar 2009), reenlisting on 30 Apr 2008 in the rank of CTT3.  He was promoted to CTT2 on 16 Jun 2008.  From November 2008 through Jan 2009, the Applicant was further evaluated due to his self-reporting of increased anxiety related to his work.  Within the Applicant’s medical record, a 9 Jan 2005 mental health examination report stated, “…Based on the assessment results as well as thorough interview with the patient, it appears that he is experiencing symptoms consistent with Schizoid Personality Disorder.  Although this personality characteristic may be contributing to his anxiety symptomology, the degree of his presentation warrants a separate diagnosis of an Anxiety Disorder NOS….Finally, it appears that the difficulties that the patient stated he is experiencing in his place of employment (i.e., difficulty keeping up and remembering directions) cannot be explained by a 

below average IQ but rather some difficulty performing or completing tasks when under timed pressure.  It is also likely that, as the result of his schizoid tendencies, (the Applicant) is feeling increased anxiety, anxious and a proclivity toward avoidance at work.  Furthermore, he expressed that, due to his worry, he was sleeping approximately 3-4 hours/night.  This lack of sleep may be contributing to the difficulties he is experiencing with memory and concentration.  AXIS I: Anxiety Disorder NOS, AXIS II: Schizoid Personality Disorder, AXIS V: GAF 70.  Based on the patient’s diagnosis of a personality disorder, consideration of separation from the United States Navy may be warranted.  The patient’s difficulty relating with others, interpersonally, could preclude him from performing his duties with the degree if precision needed.”  

On 28 Jan 2009, a Staff Psychologist from the Naval Mental Health Clinic, Hawaii sent a letter to the Applicant’s command recommending his administrative separation.  The letter stated, “The member voluntarily presented to the Naval Health Clinic Hawaii Mental Health Department for evaluation by a Staff Psychologist on 28 Jan 2009.  Impressions: Mental Health evaluation determined Schizoid Personality Disorder.  Recommendation(s): The member is not considered to be mentally ill (no medically boardable condition), but does manifest a longstanding disorder of character and behavior, which is of such severity to render this individual unsuitable for continued military service.  The patient has not been deployed in a combat zone and does not meet the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.  The member is competent.  Short-term psychiatric treatment for this condition is of limited benefit, and long-term treatment is not available within the military.  The member is deemed suitable for return to duty for immediate processing for administrative separation in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-122.  The aforementioned diagnosis and treatment recommendations were reviewed and agreed upon by another physical in accordance with DoD Instruction 1332.14.”  The Applicant received a Page 13 retention warning regarding his diagnosis on 2 Feb 2009.  

Approximately two weeks later, on 18 Feb 2009, the Applicant received a follow-up evaluation (medical report located within the Applicant’s records) that also reflected a diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder.  Remarks within the report stated, “Chief complaint: occupational and social problems.  Patient was self-referred to Mental Health.  The Patient is a 29 year old male.  He reported: In the Navy for five years.  He is a CTT and is currently assigned to NIOC Hawaii.  Reportedly, the patient was initially a submariner, but was disqualified from sub duty shortly after arriving to his first boat (due to anxiety).  He denied any disciplinary problems since being on active duty (Mast, NJP, etc.).  Interval History: The patient and I discussed his diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder and why he meets the diagnostic criteria for it.  We also discussed his appropriateness for continued military service and why a civilian position (with less human interaction and decreased stress/responsibility) might be better suited for him.  He asked about his future with the Command (how long he will remain on active duty) and he was re-directed to his command.  Patient is recommended for administrative separation due to Schizoid Personality Disorder….”  Based on the medical diagnosis and recommendations from the Mental Health physicians, the Applicant’s command administratively processed him for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the notification procedure on 19 Feb 2009, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  On 6 Mar 2009, the Commanding Officer, Navy Information Operations Command, Hawaii forwarded a memorandum to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command informing of the Applicant’s administrative separation from the Navy.  The memo stated, “(The Applicant) was evaluated at Mental Health Clinic Hawaii for a Schizoid Personality Disorder.  His condition was so severe that his doctor deemed him unsuitable for continued military service.  Accordingly, (the Applicant) was separated from the Navy with an Honorable Discharge.”  The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 20 Mar 2009 with an Honorable discharge due to Personality Disorder.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an RE code and discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.  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 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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and the narrative reason should reflect personality traits versus personality disorder.  The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s service and medical records to determine whether his discharge met the pertinent standards for propriety.  After review of all the available evidence, to include documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant and the substantial historical documentation within the Applicant’s medical records, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s Honorable discharge from the Navy due to Personality Disorder was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation.  Accordingly, the NDRB found this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.  The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant’s character or an aberration.  However, there is no law or regulation, that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  The Applicant provided a personal statement, transcripts, and Veterans Administration medical documentation as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Although his efforts to improve his life are noteworthy, the NDRB, after careful review and consideration of all the available evidence, determined that the Applicant’s Honorable discharge from the Navy due to Personality Disorder was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation.  As commendable as the Applicant’s post-service achievements may be, they do not negate or otherwise rebut the propriety of the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation as evidenced by the extensive mental health evaluation documentation (written by Board-approved mental health physicians) within his medical records.  Accordingly, the NDRB found this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, the administrative separation process and documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant, 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 23, effective 29 May 2008 until 20 August 2009, 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.

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