ex-AOAA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110427
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 3620225 [PERSONALITY DISORDER]

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	EARLY RELEASE TO CONTINUE EDUCATION

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19951130 - 19960219  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19960220	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  19970804	Highest Rank/Rate:  AOAA
Length of Service:   Year     Months   15 Days
Education Level:  GED	AFQT:  47
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR 	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM AFEM SSDR

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	SPCM:  NONE	CC:  NONE	Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

	  “MILPERSMAN 3620225”

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 11 December 1997, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER.

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 contends the command failed to adhere to the notification of separation procedures for his characterization.
2.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable because of poor records management, missing documentation in his service and medical records, and administrative and procedural noncompliance.
3.	Applicant contends the command failed to forward all separation documentation to the Bureau of Personnel (BUPERS).
4.	Applicant contends the allegation of personality disorder was not supported by the preponderance of evidence.
5.	Applicant contends the Government failed to perform the Detachment of Individual Regular report.
6.	Applicant requests that the narrative reason reflect completion of four years active duty with an early release for education.

Decision

Date:  20120712		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

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 six decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The NDRB conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s records to determine whether his discharge met the pertinent standards of propriety and equity.  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 record did reflect a mental health evaluation (dated 14 July 1997) from the NAS North Island Fleet Mental Health Unit (MHU) that was as a result of a 10 July 1997 command referral due to the Applicant’s questioning of his suitability for service.  The MHU intake form indicated the Applicant was being seen by an outside mental health provider (after consultation with a private attorney) and felt that it was in his best interest to be separated from the Navy.  Upon completion of the mental health evaluation, which included consideration of the outside mental health provider notes from a May 1997 civilian mental health evaluation of the Applicant, the Staff Psychologist diagnosed the Applicant with AXIS II: Personality Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) with Anti-Social features.  The psychologist reported, “(the Applicant) is not considered mentally ill (no medically boardable condition), but he manifested a long-standing disorder of character of behavior which is of such severity as to render this individual unsuitable for continued military service in the U.S. Navy.”  The record also included the civilian psychologist evaluation, dated 23 May 1997, for which the Applicant’s civil attorney had referred him in his pursuit of an early release from the Navy.  During the course of the evaluation, the Applicant revealed a pre-service personal history that included gang activity, arrests for assault and battery and under the influence of narcotics, heavy drug use (to include crack cocaine and PCP), drug rehabilitation treatment, juvenile hall detention, and a two-week attendance at a psychiatric facility (none of which was revealed to the Navy prior to enlistment).  Upon conclusion of the evaluation, the psychologist diagnosed the Applicant with AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder and Polysubstance Abuse (remission for three years); AXIS II: Personality Disorder NOS with paranoid and schizoid features.  The psychologist recommended that the Applicant receive an early release from the Navy.

Based on the Applicant’s previous performance and conduct, his potential for successful continued service, and the mental health physician’s diagnosis and recommendations, Applicant’s command administratively processed him for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing (on the basis of personality disorder as evidenced by mental health evaluation of 14 July 1997) using the notification procedure on 25 July 1997, the Applicant waived his right to submit a written statement in rebuttal of his proposed separation.  The NDRB noted that the notification procedure acknowledgement (election of rights)
form returned by the Applicant (dated 25 July 1997) listed “N/A” in both the “Elect” and “Waive” columns for requesting a General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) review; therefore, the Applicant did not respond to this particular right that is afforded to service members with less than six years of service who have been notified for administrative separation processing via the notification procedure (versus administrative board procedure).  The Applicant was not entitled to request an administrative separation board.  The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 4 August 1997 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder.

Issues 1 and 5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends the command failed to adhere to the notification of separation procedures regarding his characterization of service.  Additionally, he contends his discharge was improper, because the Government failed to perform the Detachment of Individual Regular report.  The Applicant’s service records contain the 25 July 1997 administrative separation notification form that states the Applicant was being processed for administrative separation from the Navy on the basis of personality disorder (as evidenced by mental health evaluation of 14 July 1997).  The notification also stated the least favorable characterization of service was General (Under Honorable Conditions).  After being notified of his rights with regard to administrative separation, the Applicant waived his right to submit a written statement and rebut his proposed separation.  Although the notification procedure acknowledgment (election of rights) form returned by the Applicant (dated 25 July 1997) improperly listed “N/A” in both the “Elect” and “Waive” columns for requesting a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review, the NDRB determined that requesting a GCMA review (while waiving his right to submit a statement in rebuttal to the proposed separation) would not have changed the decision to separate the Applicant from the Navy, the narrative reason for separation, or warrant an Honorable characterization of service.  Further, although the Applicant’s service records did not contain any Evaluation and Counseling Reports, to include the Detachment of Individual report, the serious nature of the circumstances regarding his fraudulent enlistment provided a significant negative aspect to his conduct and performance that justified the characterization of service awarded at the time of his separation.  Relief denied.

Issues 2, 3, and 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable because of poor records management, missing documentation in his service and medical records, and administrative and procedural noncompliance.  Additionally, he contends the command failed to forward all administrative separation documentation to BUPERS.  He also contends that the allegation of personality disorder was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.  Although particular documents or portions of the service and medical records may be missing, incomplete or otherwise, the NDRB determined that the available documentation within the records provided more than adequate substantiation that the Applicant was properly processed for administrative separation from the Navy on the basis of personality disorder.  In July 1997, the Applicant was diagnosed with Personality Disorder NOS with Anti-Social features, and as having possessed a long-standing disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy.  He was considered a continuing risk to do harm to himself or others and was recommended for expeditious processing for administrative separation from the Navy.  Moreover, a civilian psychologist retained by the Applicant diagnosed the Applicant as having Personality Disorder with Paranoid and Schizoid features two months prior in May 1997.  Although minor omissions or mistakes may have been made with regards to records documentation and maintenance, the NDRB determined that the factual basis supporting the Applicant’s administrative separation was sound and that he was afforded all due process and rights as provided for in the applicable directives.  After thorough analysis and deliberation on the available evidence, the Board found that the narrative reason for discharge was properly assigned.  Further, the NDRB determined that although the Applicant’s service record was devoid of NJP or trial by courts-martial, the Applicant’s dedicated efforts to obtain an early release from his contractual service obligation to the Navy and his fraudulent entry into the Navy by failing to divulge serious and significant pre-service disqualifying medical issues and personal misconduct, the General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge awarded was equitable at the time of issuance.  Relief denied.

Issue 6:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant requests that the narrative reason for separation be amended to reflect the completion of four years active duty with an early release for education.  The Applicant completed 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days of his 5-year contract.  After detailed analysis and careful consideration of all the available evidence, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  and medical record entries, documentation submitted by the Applicant, and the administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .  Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm. 

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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