ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110816
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)	20000114 - 20000906  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20000907	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20030916	Highest Rank/Rate:  ET3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   10 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  61
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  2.8 (5)	Behavior:  2.4 (8)	OTA:  2.65

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20021204:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation, 20021115)
	Article  (False official statements, 20021115)
	Awarded:  (to E-3)   ORAL    Suspended:  RIR FOP (susp 6 months)
	[* Suspended RIR FOP sentence vacated on 20021205]

SCM:  	SPCM:  

CC:  
- 20030807:	Offense:  Driving on a suspended license
	Sentence:  Probation 2 years, community service for 100 hours, fined $600.00
	[*Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20030916]

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20021204:	For violation of UCMJ Article 107 - False Official Statements.

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), 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 veteran education benefits.  
2.	Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable. 

Decision

Date:  20120918		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 his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning and  nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, false entries on watch qualification card, 15 November 2002) and Article 107 (False official statement, made false statement to an ETCS regarding entries on watch qualification card, 15 November 2002).  There was no evidence of trial by courts-martial.  The Applicant’s service and medical records indicated a significant history of psychiatric evaluation and counseling that began in April 2001 during submarine school training.  The Applicant was found fit for full duty and allowed to continue training.  He received subsequent psychiatric counseling in September 2001, which again resulted in being found fit for full duty in the submarine service.  On 24 April 2002, the Applicant had a dispute with his Leading Petty Officer (LPO) and Leading Chief Petty Officer (LCPO) after which he voiced a suicide ideation.  The Applicant was referred for psychiatric evaluation, and upon completion was again found fit for duty.

On 4 December 2002, the Applicant received NJP for allegations of violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 107.  Subsequent to the NJP proceedings, the Applicant voiced suicidal and homicidal ideations and was referred for mental health evaluation.  Upon completion, the staff psychologist diagnosed the Applicant with AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder (with Depressed Mood), and AXIS II: r/o Personality Disorder NOS (with Avoidant Features), but found fit for duty.  The Applicant’s medical record contained an entry (dated 20 December 2002) that stated that an extensive record review was conducted, listing all mental health evaluations/consults to date.  Through the 20th of December 2002, the Applicant was consistently found to be fit for full duty by mental health specialists (with no sign of mental illness) and determined to be fully responsible for his actions.  After analyzing the Applicant’s complete medical record, it was determined that the Applicant’s suicide ideation “did not reflect a genuine desire to enact self-harm but rather an impulsive response to personal stressors.  This constitutes an administrative vice medical problem.”  Shortly thereafter, on 31 December 2002, the Applicant was evaluated and diagnosed with AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder (with Passive Aggressive, Immature features), and AXIS II: Personality Disorder NOS.  In March 2003, per Navy Personnel Command direction, the Applicant was converted from the ET rating as an E-3 to an undesignated Seaman.  The Applicant was again evaluated in May 2003 and determined to be psychologically fit for duty.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service and potential for future service, the significant medical history documentation, and the staff psychologist recommendation for expeditious administrative separation, the Applicant’s command processed him for administrative separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 17 July 2003, 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 16 September 2003 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Personality Disorder.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education 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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was improper and inequitable.  The Board conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s medical and service records to determine whether his discharge met the pertinent standards for propriety and equity.  After careful consideration of the available records, documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant, and extensive testimony during the personal hearing, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s administrative separation from the Navy on the basis of Personality Disorder was proper.  However, the NDRB was also convinced that the Applicant did not falsify qualification records nor fail to obey an order or regulation and so did not commit a serious offense that led to his characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).  His service otherwise during his enlistment was honorable.  Accordingly, the Board found that the Applicant’s issue warranted partial relief based on the grounds of equity, and the character of service will change to Honorable.  Partial relief warranted.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  and medical record entries, the administrative separation discharge process, documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant, and the testimony provided at the personal hearing, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable at the time of discharge.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   but the narrative reason for separation shall remain .  The Applicant is no longer eligible for additional reviews or hearings by the NDRB.  He 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.

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