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

Docket No. ND01-01160

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

 ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND01-01160

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010905, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020419.  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:  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Please review my discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) based on my post service conduct.  I have been an exemplary employee of Bank of America since 1996 Oct with seven promotions during my tenure.  I have also been married for three years with a two year old daughter.  I have no criminal convictions against me.  Thank you for considering this request.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
10 pages from Service/Medical record
Applicant's Garfield's Quality/Service/Cleanliness Report with comments
Letter of Employment (11/92 - 2/94), Arbitrary Paradox, dtd Dec 20, 94
Character Reference letter from J_ H_, Instructor School of Visual Arts, Univ. of N. Texas, May 94
Character Reference letter from C_ J. D_, Adm, Greater Las Cruces Church of Christ
New Mexico State University transcript dtd 19 Jun 2000
Letter of Appreciation from J_ F_, President/CEO, MECA, dtd Sep 12, 2001
Letter of Appreciation from customer, B_ K_, dtd Jun 8, 2001
MVP Award, NM/El Paso Small Business Banking
Letter of Congratulations (Nov 23, 98; Dec 22, 98; Jul 2, 1998)
Letter of Appreciation, Bank of America, from H_ L. M_, dtd Jan 31, 2000
Letter of Outstanding customer service from L_
Letter of Congratulations for outstanding customer service from L_ S_ dtd Nov 19, 1999
Bank of America Loan Process Evaluation dtd 7/14/1999
Character Reference from D_ G_ , undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910126 - 910723	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910724		Date of Discharge:  920225

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1)	Behavior:  2.0 (1)		OTA:  2.65

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

911021:	Dropped from the Nuclear Field Program due to insufficient grade for continuation with advanced training phase.

920121:	Mental Health Dept, Naval Hospital Orlando:  Applicant diagnosed:  AXIS I:  Occupational Problem; AXIS II:  Personality Disorder with Passive-Aggressive and Dependent Features, EPTE; AXIS III:  None, by report.  Pt has evidenc of an inherent, pre-existing personality disorder which is of sufficient severity as to render this individual incapable of serving adequately in military service.  Such personality disorder is unlikely to respond to psychological intervention within the military medical system and further psychological intervention is not indicated at present  Member is judged to represent continuing risk to self and others if retained in naval service due to chronic difficulty coping with routine stress of military life.  Recommend expeditious consideration to be administratively separated from service by reason of unsuitability. 

920122:	Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report (91SEP27 to 92JAN22) contained derogatory contents.  Applicant declined to make statement.

920129:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

920129:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.  Did not object to separation.

920224:	Commanding officer, NTC Staff, Orlando, advised BUPERS the applicant was approved for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder and he represents a continuing risk to self or others if retained in the naval service.  

920225:	OIC, PSA Det, Orlando advised BUPERS applicant was discharged on 25 Feb 92.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920225 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 1991 until 04 Mar 1993, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 1991 until 04 Mar 1993, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - BASIS OF PERSONALITY DISORDER.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 “afls10.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/A9221/A9217/