ex- PS2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160513
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PERSONALITY DISORDER
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-122 [PERSONALITY DISORDER] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: PREGNANCY MPM 1910-112
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20090126	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years 17 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20130620	Highest Rank/Rate:  PS2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   25 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  69

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.4 (5)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.4 (5)   OTA: 3.33 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Pistol  NDSM GWOTSM GCM NMCAM 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

NJP:    SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20121101:	For you were diagnosed with Personality Disorder, your present condition has not been considered a physical disability; however it may be a disqualifying factor in determining your suitability for further Naval Service. 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	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:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	1stLt Benjamin Jensen, USMC
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 28, effective 21 August 2009 until Present, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that her discharge was improper as she does not have a Personality Disorder and desires that her Narrative Reason and Separation Authority on her DD-214 be corrected with regard to that terminology.

Discussion

Date:  20170711		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, TBI, Military Sexual Trauma, or a mental health condition, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review under § 1553.

The Applicant’s record of service included one retention warning counseling for administrative separation for Personality Disorder.  It contained no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.

The Applicant was recommended for Administrative Discharge due to Personality Disorder by clinical psychologist Dr. O_C_ in October 2012; this letter was co-signed by staff psychologist Dr. A_ C_ and peer reviewed by Dr. A_ M_.  The Applicant appealed this recommendation in writing, but the administrative discharge was upheld by the General Court-Martial Convening Authority in January 2013.  The separation was finalized in June 2013.  Her scheduled End of Active Service would have been January 2014.

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends that her discharge was improper as she does not have a Personality Disorder and desires that her Narrative Reason and Separation Authority on her DD-214 be amended to reflect this.  The Applicant was processed for administrative separation for Personality Disorder immediately following a single limited duty (LIMDU) period for Depressive Disorder NOS and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Her LIMDU Board was initiated by LT L_ W_ in March 2012 in Japan, and the recommendation for Administrative Separation was authored by Dr. O_ C_ in October 2012 in San Diego.  Dr. C_ contended that the Applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD and that she suffered from “Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” as opposed to a Major Depressive Disorder; Dr. C_ further opined that this Adjustment Disorder was not the primary psychological pathology interfering with duty, but the member’s “Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (with Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic Traits)” was the primary diagnosis.  Dr. C_ referenced her own encounters with the Applicant, conversations with the Applicant’s case manager, and Dr. M_’s observations on the in-patient ward as the basis for this opinion.  Dr. C_ referenced specific manipulative behavior, to include lying, on the part of the Applicant about arranging work restrictions.  Psychological testing was not performed.

Of concern, in the recommendation for separation, Dr. C_ did not present the alternative point of view of the Applicant’s long-term therapist with Fleet and Family Services, that the Applicant suffered trauma-related anxiety.   Dr. C_ also appeared to doubt the veracity of the indecent assault that the Applicant suffered, stating the Applicant “had been in mental health treatment since 2009 after an alleged sexual assault that was not substantiated by NCIS investigation.”  The NCIS investigation, however, clearly contains multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., video recordings, witness statements) which support the notion that the event occurred, but NCIS could not prosecute the civilian person involved and it was declined by the civilian authorities.  Receipt of this information about the NCIS investigation in the fall of 2011 is what led to the Applicant’s decompensation in psychological functioning and ultimately the start of her LIMDU in March 2012.  Dr. C_ also did not mention the Applicant’s hospital admission for evacuation of a non-viable molar pregnancy the preceding month; while this should have been included under the “Axis III” issues, only “Nonspecific Myalgias” are listed. 

The Applicant’s current treating provider, Dr. H_, who has cared for the Applicant over a duration of many years and thus has had a more substantial opportunity for evaluation, wrote to the Board that the Applicant does not have a Personality Disorder but that she does have some personality traits.  Maladaptive personality traits are likely to flare during times of emotional stress.  Examples of life events that cause stress include: placement on medical limited duty, a change of job, a transcontinental move, intimate partner difficulties, and a miscarried pregnancy; the Applicant had experienced all of these in the six months preceding Dr. C_’s recommendation for administrative separation.  

The Applicant alleges she has suffered adverse consequences of the Personality Disorder narrative; namely, she lost custody of her infant child for a year due to her ex-spouse using this information to support his claim that she is an unfit mother.  She has since gained back joint and then primary custody.  She has remarried and has maintained longterm involvement with her church community, characteristics that are not consistent with the “pervasive pattern of interpersonal difficulties” expected of a person with a Personality Disorder.  Thus, while it appeared to Dr. Cao in 2012 that the Applicant had a Personality Disorder, and the Applicant was then processed properly and equitably by her command, the Board finds that the diagnosis cannot be substantiated when viewed in the totality of the Applicant’s circumstances; moreover, it has been refuted by a licensed provider who has had more abundant opportunity to observe the Applicant.  Therefore, relief is granted on this issue.

The Applicant did not contend that the narrative reason for her discharge should be changed to reflect a medical disability.  If the Applicant feels this is warranted, she should consider petitioning BCNR for a determination of whether the medical condition(s) or underlying diagnose(s) interfered significantly with the applicant’s ability to carry out the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.  The Applicant (using DD Form 149) may file the petition with BCNR, at 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF, and the reentry code shall  RE-3G.  The Separation Authority for this discharge is MILPERSMAN 1910-122.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  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.  

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/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic 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, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & d(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.

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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text  274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.