Author: CAP
Last saved by: janet.goode
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND06-00599

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-YN3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00599

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060330.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “HONORABLE.”  The Applicant requests 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 20070110.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the reason for discharge shall not change.  Because the Applicant received an honorable discharge, the Board did not consider changing the characterization of service.  The discharge shall remain Honorable by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement:  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE DUTY FROM 951113 UNTIL 000927.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter:

“Dear Board Members,

I, T_ T.  R_ (Applicant), feel that I was not given sufficient counseling in my time of need.  The issue of which arose in my life during that time was not properly assessed and as a result I was released from active duty.  I was wrongly perceived by the physician to whom I conveyed my concerns.  I was honestly seeking help in trying to cope with my stress; however the physician completely misread my emotions and coerced me into making a life altering decision.  One that I did not and should not have made under the circumstances.  He did not listen to my concerns, nor did he offer assistance, he merely made the assumption that the sole reason I brought my situation to his attention was to get out of the Navy.

I attempted to meet with this physician once again but he declined my request and recommended that I be released from active duty.  Shortly after that meeting, 10 days to be exact, I was discharged.  I have served eight years of loyal and devoted service with great pride, honor, courage, and commitment and I hope to serve many more.  I, T_ T.  R_, request the members of the board to please review my situation and reconsider changing my character of separation to “Honorable” and my re-entry code to “RE-1”, allowing me the opportunity to serve the Navy once again.  I appreciate all the time that you have allotted in reviewing my request and I look forward to serving our beloved country once again.

Sincerely,
[signed]
T_ T.  R_”

Documentation

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

Letter to Applicant from Department of Veterans Affairs, dtd March 6, 2006
Progress note from Pensacola Veterans Administration Clinic, dtd March 3, 2006 (2 pages)
Two pages from Applicant’s medical record
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19950619 - 19951112	COG
	Active:   USN	19951113 - 20000927	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000928		Date of Discharge:  20040331

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  04
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  25

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  YN3*

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.8 (5)		Behavior:  3.4 (5)		OTA:  3.51

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Meritorious Unit Commendation, Good Conduct Medal (2), National Defense Service Medal (2), Flag Letter of Commendation (3)

*Per DD 214

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

000928:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.

030713:	Applicant marks “yes” on Transfer physical examination Report of Medical History, Question 17f, “Have you ever had or do you now have:  depression or excessive worry?”

040129:	Applicant reports aboard Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 132 this dates.
	[Extracted from VAQ-132 Flight Surgeon ltr, dtd 040301.]

040218:	Applicant deployed aboard USS JOHN F KENNEDY with VAQ-132 this date.
	[Extracted from VAQ-132 Flight Surgeon ltr, dtd 040301.]

040301:	LT N. A. B_, MC, USNR, Flight Surgeon, CVW 17, notified Commanding Officer, VAQ-132 of Applicant’s unsuitability for sea duty.  Flight Surgeon’s comments:  “SNM (Applicant) reported to Medical on 040228 stating of feeling ‘depressed’ and feels she’d be better off if someone physically harmed her.  Ship’s Psychologist, LT Y_, diagnosed SNM as having ‘Major Depressive Disorder’ and recommends SNM be transferred back to homeport for a Limited Duty Board.  LT Y_ further recommended that SNM no be recommended for reenlistment (SNM’s EAOS is in 7 months).”

040317:	Medical entry:  Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor, WA, CAPT D. P. K_, MC, USNR:  This YN2/USN (Applicant) was apparently sent back to NAS Whidbey Island from her squadron aboard USS John F. Kennedy TAD to the base holding company.  There are no notes in the medical record as to why.  She said she was prescribed Zoloft on the ship, but did not take it.  She is certain that she cannot return to the ship.  This appears similar to a medevac out of England she caused in 2000 when she ended up on limited duty.  I suspect that both then and now the primary causes of her difficulty are more characterological than due to a mental illness.  She is not so depressed at this time to prevent her from doing her duties.  I have released her back to duty and will revisit the case if there is new information.

040323:	Medical entry (partial):  Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor, WA, CAPT D. P. K_, MC, USNR:  (Applicant) Returned to see me to say she wants to get out of the Navy.  Frankly my (entry ends)…

040324:	Medical evaluation by CAPT D. P. K_, MC, USNR, Psychiatrist, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor, WA:
Applicant diagnosed with personality disorder not otherwise specified, severe, existed prior to enlistment.  Captain K_ comments:  “Member was evaluated on 17 and 23 March 2004 after being medevaced from USS JOHN F. KENNEDY while underway for suicide potential.  This current episode mirrors her past behavior in 2000 when she was medevaced to Jacksonville, Florida from duty in England when she became acutely depressed shortly after arrival.  The psychiatrists in 2000 suspected a personality disorder, but they gave her the benefit of the doubt and placed her on limited duty.  I see no reason to offer another period of limited duty, because I expect this pattern of behavior will repeat itself in the future whenever operational expectations exceed this member’s limited ability to cope.  I strongly recommend that the command process the member for administrative separation on the basis of a personality disorder of such severity that the member’s ability to function in the naval environment is significantly impaired.  While the member is not currently suicidal or homicidal, she is considered self-destructive and an on-going danger to herself and/or others.”

040325:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).

040325:	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.

040329:	Commanding Officer, Electronic Attack Squadron ONE THREE TWO, recommended to Commander, Naval Personnel Command, that the Applicant be discharged by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder with a characterization of service as honorable.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “YN2 R_ (Applicant) has been medically diagnosed with ‘Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, Severe, Existed Prior to Enlistment’ by Captain K_, Head Psychiatrist, Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor, WA.  Captain K_ has recommended that YN2 R_ be processed for administrative separation due to his opinion that while YN2 R_ is not currently suicidal or homicidal, she is considered self-destructive and an on-going danger to herself and/or others.  I concur with the Doctor’s diagnosis and recommend that YN2 R_ be separated by reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s).  YN2 R_ is unfit for sea duty and service in the United States Navy.  I recommend that YN2 R_ receive a characterization of service of Honorable.”

040330:	Applicant found physically qualified for release from active duty.

040331:	DD 214:  Applicant discharged this date with characterization of service as honorable.

Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040331 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of honorable.  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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The Applicant was diagnosed with "Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, Severe, Existed Prior to Enlistment" by competent medical authority at the Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor, WA, and was recommended for expeditious administrative separation from the Navy.  She was diagnosed, by qualified medical officer, as possessing a disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy.  She was considered to be a continuing risk to do harm to herself and/or others.  The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates she was separated for a Personality Disorder.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Thus, the Board finds that the Reason for Discharge reflects the Applicant's mental health status at the time of her 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.  The contention that the personality disorder no longer exists or has been overcome does not provide a legitimate basis to revise official records that were accurate at the time of issuance.  The Board found no indication in the record that the Applicant was inequitably or improperly diagnosed or denied treatment for her condition.  The Applicant’s allegations, that she was denied assistance and counseling for her personal problems, do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief is not warranted.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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.  The Applicant can provide documentation or any additional evidence related to this 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 19 June 2005, 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.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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