Title: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Author: CAP
Last saved by: Roberts, James A CIV SECNAVCORB, NDRB
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND15-00852

ex-BM2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20150318
Characterization of Service Received:  (per DD 214) HONORABLE
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (per DD 214) PERSONALITY DISORDER
Reenlistment Code:  RE-4
Authority for Discharge:  (per DD 214) MILPERSMAN 1910-122 [PERSONALITY DISORDER]

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	NONE REQUESTED
	Narrative Reason change to:	OTHER PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITIONS or 
		ANY NARRATIVE MORE APPROPRIATE
	Reentry Code change to:  RE-1 or RE-3

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19900730 - 19910714  COG	Active:	USN	19910715 - 19950612  HON
				USN	19950613 - 19981029  HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment:  19981030	Age at Enlistment:  25
Period of Enlistment:  5 Years  44 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20020118	Highest Rank/Rate:  BM2
Length of Service:  03 Year(s)   02  Month(s)   20 Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  92
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  4.5 (2)	Behavior:  4.0 (2)	OTA:  4.14

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle EX Pistol EX NMCAM MUC(3) NAVY "E"(2) GCM(3) NDSM SSDR(2) NRSSR ESWS DSWS

Periods of UA/CONF:  NONE

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	SPCM:  NONE	CC:  NONE	

Retention Warning Counseling:  1 [Extracted from Commanding Officer, NROTC Unit USD/SDSU REPORT OF 
           ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION letter dated 3 January 2002]

- 20011022:	For being withdrawn from the Enlisted Commissioning Program by direction of the Chief of Naval Education and Training for the submission of a falsified application package 

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 33, effective 14 August 2001 until 
21 August 2002, 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)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks re-entry into the Nurse Corps.
2.	The Applicant contends he was misdiagnosed in service as evidenced by his current post service Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosis and treatment rendering his narrative reason for separation, separation authority, separation code, and RE-Code as incorrect.
3.	The Applicant contends his post service achievements warrant consideration for the changes he has requested.

Decision

Date:  20150604	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain HONORABLE.
By a vote of 4-1 the Narrative Reason shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.
By a vote of 5-0 the Reenlistment Code shall remain RE-4.
By a vote of 4-1 the Separation Code shall change to JFF.

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim that unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress impacted his discharge, and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  The Applicant’s service record documents the Applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and narcissistic personality disorder while serving in the armed forces.

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 did complete 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 no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.  However, the REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION letter from the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) Unit University of San Diego (USD)/San Diego State University (SDSU) dated 3 January 2002 documented the Applicant’s 22 October 2001 withdrawal from the Enlisted Commissioning Program by direction of the Chief of Naval Education and Training for the submission of a falsified application package as well as documented his  page 13 retention warning counseling for the associated misconduct.  Both the Applicant’s submissions to this board and the evidence of the record show the Applicant then began utilizing mental health services and expressed suicidal ideations.  Based on the Applicant’s subsequent diagnosis of personality disorder by competent medical authority, his command administratively processed him for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the notification procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.

Issue 1:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks re-entry into the Nurse Corps.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Additionally, 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.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment or commissioning opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment or commissioning.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter or officer selection officer.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) (Propriety)  PARTIAL RELIEF WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends he was misdiagnosed in service as evidenced by his current post service Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosis and treatment rendering his narrative reason for separation, separation authority, separation code, and RE-Code as incorrect.  Pursuant to Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) Article 1910-122, members may be processed for separation based on a mental health professional’s clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder when the disorder is so severe that one’s ability to function effectively and perform their duties is significantly impaired, and the individual poses a threat to safety or well-being of themselves or others.  On 4 December 2001, the Applicant was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood by a clinical psychologist at the Fleet Mental Health Unit, Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Station, San Diego.  The NDRB found no evidence, nor did the Applicant provide any, to indicate he had overcome his mental health deficiencies while still in the service.  Personality disorder was an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant’s discharge at the time of separation, as was adjustment disorder.

The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s post-service mental health evaluation from the Adult Outpatient Mental Health Services, Naval Medical Center Sand Diego, which was conducted more than two years after being separated, as well as his VA diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress, which was conducted more than 13 years after his discharge.  The NDRB found the documentary evidence provided by the Applicant showing that the same clinical psychologist that diagnosed him with personality disorder in-service changed his diagnosis after continued evaluation two years after his discharge as compelling evidence that the narrative reason for separation was inaccurate when combined with his other post-service medical evidence.  The NDRB also considered that while the Applicant was processed for personality disorder, he clearly was not processed expeditiously and therefore should have received the required page 13 counseling and warning.  Such a warning was not found in the Applicant’s record of service nor was it referenced in his separation documentation.  Furthermore, the NDRB found that the Applicant had not transitioned to a period of probationary status as a midshipman or an officer and was still an enlisted member with over six years of active service.  Barring the requirement for an expeditious separation for personality disorder, the Applicant should have been given the option to elect or waive an administrative board.  The NDRB noted that while notified for separation utilizing the notification method, the Applicant was also improperly not provided the option to exercise his right a General Court-Martial Convening Authority Review of his case.

Based on his condition as documented by both his in- and post-service medical records, the NDRB determined the Applicant more accurately met the requirements for separation by reason of Convenience of the Government – Physical or Mental Conditions due to his diagnosed adjustment disorder.  The NDRB does not, however, have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical-related reasons.  The NDRB typically only changes narrative reasons for separation to other narrative reasons that the Applicant was specifically notified of during separation processing.  In cases where no other reason for separation set forth in the Naval Military Personnel Manual is appropriate, but where separation of a member is considered to be in the best interest of the service, the Secretary of the Navy has the authority to direct the separation of any member prior to the expiration of their term of service.  Since there is no other available narrative reason for separation that accurately describes the reason the Applicant was separated, the NDRB determined the reason for the Applicant’s discharge shall change to Secretarial Authority.

The NDRB found the REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION letter from the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) Unit University of San Diego (USD)/San Diego State University (SDSU) dated 3 January 2002 concerning in that it documented the Applicant’s 22 October 2001 withdrawal from the Enlisted Commissioning Program by direction of the Chief of Naval Education and Training for the submission of a falsified application package as well as documented his  page 13 retention warning counseling for the associated misconduct.  Treatment notes in the Applicant’s official medical record revealed that after his disenrollment from the NROTC program he was given a “bad” evaluation and ordered to return to duty aboard the USS NIMITZ.  The medical record documents that at this point the Applicant began to mentally decompensate and express suicidal ideations.  A mental health summary dated 2 November 2001 stated, in part, “He is now determined to leave the Naval service as soon as possible, even if he has to harm himself to gain discharge. …His suicidal threats reflect his intention to be discharged; however, he does not want to die and looks forward to fathering his child.”  A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the finding that the Applicant’s narrative reason for separation was ultimately improper and should therefore change to Secretarial Authority with the associated separations authority and code changes.  However, the NDRB determined this issue fails to provide justification for a change in RE-Code based on the documentation provided by both the Applicant and his service record.  Partial relief granted.

Issue 3:  (Decisional) (Equity)  PARTIAL RELIEF WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his post service achievements warrant consideration for the changes he has requested.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a personal statement, excerpts from post service mental health treatment records, and his current resume.  The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum; however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee a change to a servicemembers discharge information as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service information establishes that the Applicant’s in-service issues were an aberration.  In the Applicant’s case, his post-service documentation was considered while reconciling with his preceding issue.  Partial relief granted.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the narrative reason for separation was improper.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding SPD code of JFF.  The assigned reentry code shall remain RE-4.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

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:  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-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

Key:	NFIR - Not found in record 	RESTR - Restriction	NJP - Nonjudicial punishment	SCM - Summary court-martial
	SPCM - Special court-martial	FOP - Forfeiture of pay	RIR - Reduction in rank	EPD - Extra duties
	CONF - Confinement	CC - Civilian conviction	CCU - Correctional Custody Unit	CBW - Confinement on bread and water

Key:	NFIR - Not Found In Record 	UA – Unauthorized absence	NJP – Nonjudicial punishment	SCM – Summary court-martial	
	SPCM – Special court-martial	FOP – Forfeiture of pay	RIR – Reduction in rank	EPD – Extra Duties 
	CONF – Confinement		B&W – Confinement on bread and water