Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND00-00949

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

 ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00949

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000727, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010215.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 24 months of service with no other adverse action.

2.  My discharge was primarily based on medical findings which in the interest of the U.S. Navy was at the convinience of the government.

3.  My discharge was not fairly and fully narrated and documented on my discharge certificate DD-214.

4.  My discharge was improper because the status of my health prior to my enlistment was not considered in arriving at the decision to separate me from the U.S. Navy.

Documentation

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

Comments from American Legion dated January 30, 2001
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Two pages from applicant's service record
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs dated February 15, 2000
Copy of medical records (12 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970828 - 971120	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  971121		Date of Discharge:  991020

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (2)	Behavior:  1.00 (2)		OTA:  2.09

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  11 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

981005:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 5Oct98.

981016:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 16Oct98 (11 days/surrendered).

990604:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his appointed place of duty on 1015, 27Oct98, to wit: 2d Bn 1^st Mar; violation of UCMJ Article 87: Miss movement on 0700, 5Oct98.
	Award: Forfeiture of $251 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

990609:	Medical officer statement, something close to the following:  Applicant diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and personality disorder NOS with avoidant, schizotypal, passive-aggressive, and paranoid traits.  The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  Applicant was considered self-destructive and a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

990920:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Despite counseling and treatment, HN (applicant) continues to be unmotivated and fails to demonstrate those characteristics expected of a Hospitalman.  HN (applicant) is either incapable or unwilling to adhere to the rules and regulations of this command and the U.S. Navy.  He has failed to conduct himself in a manner conducive to good order and discipline.  Additionally, HN (applicant) remains a danger to himself and others.  He has been diagnosed with and subsequently demonstrated personality disorders.  I strongly recommend that HN (applicant) be separated from the naval service by reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s), and that his characterization of service by General (Under Honorable Conditions).

991012:	Commanding General, 1^st Marine Division, MARFORPAC directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 991020 general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident".  The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record.  No such leniency exists in the military.  The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

In response to applicant’s issue 2, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief.  When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant's performance and ability to conform to the military's standards of conduct and discipline.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant's diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his misconduct of record.  Relief is not warranted.

In response to applicant’s issue 3, the Board found that the applicant’s DD-214 accurately describes the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge for a personality disorder.  Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.

In response to applicant’s issue 4, the Board determined that to permit relief an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review.  There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge.  There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective 
20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s) 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 “afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A8600/A9455/A9235