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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

   ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01171

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050706.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Medical Discharge.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated private representative as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060414.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/ PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge was inequitable because it was solely based on my Personality Assessment Inventory Report conducted by the Medical Health clinic aboard Naval Station Great Lakes.  I believe my discharge was also improper because my work performance evaluations and medical back injury sustained while on active duty paperwork was not taken into consideration before there was a decision about my discharge status.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Private Representative):

“1. HN M_ (Applicant) sustained a severe back injury while on active duty and has the proper medical documentation to support the injuries that she acquired.  However, the severity nor the nature of the injury was taken into consideration before there was a final decision on her discharge status.

2. HN M_’s (Applicant) discharge was inequitable because it was based solely on her Personality Assessment completed by the Mental Health clinic at Naval Hospital Great Lakes.

3.  HN M_ (Applicant) was at no time a problematic sailor:  Letter of recommendation were provided to you from her former superiors.  Aside from the letters outstanding evaluation report and counseling records were provided supporting her outstanding performance as a sailor.  HN M_ (Applicant) enjoyed her job so much that she applied to attend Nursing School; however, because of her back injury and the treatments she receives every 4 months she had to change career directions.

4.  Not only was she an outstanding sailor and hospital corpsman during her time on active duty.  However, if certain circumstances had not come about there is absolutely no doubt that she would still be representing our country today.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293):  “To the board members, I would like to take a moment of your time to explain my situation.  I enlisted in the U.S. Navy on 7 Aug 2001.  After recruit training I attended Naval Hospital Corps School, and was then stationed at Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL.  While there I conducted my duties as assigned and to the best of my abilities.  While stationed at the Naval Hospital I injured my back while attempting to keep a patient from falling and hitting the floor.  I did receive medial attention for this injury; however, a few months after I reinjured my back when exiting the barrack where I resided.  This injury was due to a build up mixture of snow and black ice.  After being treated for one year for muscle spasms they finally decided to refer me out to the Center for Pain Control in Libertyville, IL, because the pain was unbearable at that point.  Once I began the clinic the first thing they did was order a MRI test and found injuries that could have been found a year earlier.  This injury had caused me a great deal of pain, so much that I am currently still receiving injections in my spine and lower back in Durham, N.C.  I also developed problems with severe depression due to the lack of pain control and some family problems.  I would like for the Board to consider changing my discharge characterization from a General Under Honorable Conditions, to read Honorable, due to the enclosed facts that I provided.  Your help is this matter will be greatly appreciated.  Thank you for your anticipated support.”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Three pages from the Applicant’s service record
Letter of Recommendation from D_ R_, LT, NC, USNR dtd November 20, 2003
Letter of Recommendation for separation due to personality disorder dtd October 30, 2003
Medical Documentation (31 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010606 – 20010806		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010807		Date of Discharge:  20031201

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  25  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  21

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.7 (3)		Behavior:  3.7 (3)		OTA:  3.75 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal.

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

011218:	Medical evaluation, Naval Hospital Great Lakes.
	AXIS I:	Major depression, recurrent 296.30 EPTE
			Relationship Problem NOS, V62.81
			Bereavement, V62.82
	AXIS II:	301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder
	AXIS III:	Has fibroid problems
	AXIS V: 	Current Global Assessment of Functioning:  65

020107:	Mental status evaluation, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL.
	AXIS I:	Adjustment disorder with Depressed Mood.  309.0
	AXIS II:	No Diagnosis, V71.09; dependence/independence conflicts.
	AXIS III:	Sickle Cell Trait; tendency toward tachycardia.
AXIS IV:	Normal Stressors of Everyday Life, including transition into adult responsibilities.
	AXIS V:	Global Assessment Functioning: 65

0207XX:	Applicant injured back in execution of her duties as a hospitalman.

0303XX:	Applicant reinjured her back after falling on ice.

031030:	Medical evaluation by clinical psychologist, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL.  
Diagnosis:  
AXIS I:  Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions, DNEPTE, (309.28).
AXIS II:  Borderline Personality Disorder with Paranoid Features, ETPE, (301.83).
At this time, the conditions are sufficiently severe to impair significantly the members ability to function effectively in the military environment as demonstrated by the following problem behavior: impulsive anger, suicidal thoughts with a vague plan when angry or depressed, paranoid thoughts concerning her safety, auditory and visual hallucinations.  The following risks are associated with retention in service: HMSN M_ is a continuous risk for harm to self and others due to impulsive anger, paranoid thoughts towards others, and suicidal thoughts.  The disorder(s) are not considered amenable to effective treatment in the military setting.  The member has no unfitting disability that was incurred in, or aggravated by, active military service, either for the current period or any prior period of service.

031030:	Mental Health Clinic Evaluation:
	AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions, Moderate, DNEPTE, not psychologically disabling.
	AXIS II: Borderline Personality Disorder with Paranoid Features, sufficiently severe to significantly impair her military functioning, EPTE, psychologically disabling. 
AXIS III: Severe back injuries on three different occasions while in Naval Service.
AXIS IV: Chronic back pain, Navy rigors.
AXIS V: 50

031112:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government personality disorder.

031112:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

031204:	Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, IL directed Applicant’s discharge by reason of convenience of the government personality disorder.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “HN M_(Applicant) was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist with a personality disorder (adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions).  The psychologist opined that HN M_ (Applicant) is at continuous risk of harm to herself and others and that the disorder is not amenable to treatment with the military setting.  She therefore recommended expeditious administrative separation.  I concur with these findings and have determined that HN M_ (Applicant) has no potential for the future naval service.  Accordingly, I ordered HN M_ (Applicant) be separated from the Navy.  HN M_ (Applicant) was separated locally under authority granted by MILPERSMAN 1910-700 on 01 December 2003 for convenience of the government-personality disorder with a characterization of service as Honorable.  The separation code is JFX.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20031201 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service (B and C).  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change, but by unanimous vote, that the narrative reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall change to:  HONORABLE/PERSONALITY DISORDER.

For discharges based on personality disorder, the discharge should be honorable unless there exists justification for a general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or entry level separation characterization.  The Board found no counselings, nonjudicial punishments or evaluations to warrant a general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  Therefore, the Board found that the Applicant’s general (under honorable characterization) was inequitable and voted unanimously to change the Applicant’s discharge characterization to honorable.  Relief granted.

In response to the Applicant’s issue as listed on her DD Form 293 and representative Issue 2.  The Applicant contends that her discharge was inequitable because it was “solely based on my Personality Assessment Inventory Report conducted by the Medical Health clinic aboard Naval Station Great Lakes.”  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 20031030.  The evidence of record and documentation provided by the Applicant did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis or the narrative reason for separation was improper or inequitable.  Relief denied.

In response to the Applicant’s issue as listed on her DD Form 293 and representative Issue 1.  The Applicant contends that her discharge was improper because her back injury sustained on active duty was not taken into consideration.  The Board considered the Applicant’s issue as an implication that she should have been processed for a discharge based on her medical condition.  Per regulations, the initiation and submission of medical boards are at the discretion of the individual physician.  There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority.  Further the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant.  Therefore, the Board found the Applicant’s issue without merit.  Relief denied.

In response to the Applicant’s issue as listed on her DD Form 293 and representative Issues 3-4.  The Applicant contends that she was an outstanding sailor and that if “certain circumstances had not come about... she would still be representing our country today.”  As discussed in response to Issue 2, above, the Applicant was properly diagnosed by competent medical authority.  While the mere presence of a personality disorder is not a bar to Naval Service, competent medical authority determined that Applicant was a continuous risk for harm to self and others due to impulsive anger, paranoid thoughts towards others and suicidal thoughts and recommended the Applicant’s expeditious separation.  Thus, the Board found that the reason for discharge reflects the Applicant's mental health status at the time of discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance.  "Personality Disorder" is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant's discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), 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 V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil”.

The names, and votes of the members of the 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