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

Docket No. ND06-00868

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00868

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060614.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge 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 20070329.  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 character of the discharge and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity:  Discharge should have been for personality disorder

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010118 - 20010219	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010220		Date of Discharge:  20050301

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  12
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  17 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted:  4 (24-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  97

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (3)			Behavior:  2.7 (3)		OTA:  2.89

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

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040808:	Medical entry, USS Toledo, HM1 D_ C_ R_, USN:  (Applicant) … approached by ET3 J_ who was concerned about a cut on patient’s arm.  Pt states he cut himself about 1 week ago and this morning he decided to open the cut up again…used a razor blade…does not want to kill himself or others at present time…a little angry and depressed due to possibility of going to mast….discovered that he was blazing logs and had done a few other things wrong on his watch station…
	A:  Laceration left arm.  Adjustment reaction w/attempted suicide.
	P.  Laceration bandaged…follow up with MDR on a daily basis.  MDR to have member evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist upon earliest opportunity.

040816:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):
	Specification 1: Dereliction in the performance of duties in that he falsified his log readings while standing watch on 040805.
	Specification 2: Failure to obey other lawful order by failing to complete required qualifications on 040806.
	Award:  Reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040819:	Medical entry:  Branch Medical Clinic, Bahrain Mental Health Division, HM2 J_ E. C_, USN, Neuropsych Technician:  Patient (Applicant) seen in follow up for safety screening.  Session focused on…stress management…stated that it would be nice to get off the sub for a while…thought content focused on his upcoming flight back to CONUS…looking forward to getting back.
	A:  Axis I deferred.
	Axis II deferred.
	Axis III deferred.
	P:  pt will be flown back to CONUS for further evaluation.

040821:	Applicant medevaced from USS Toledo in Bahrain to Groton, CT secondary to attempted suicide.
	[Extracted from psychological evaluation, dated 040923.]

040923:	Psychological evaluation, Mental Health Department, Naval Ambulatory Center, Groton, CT, Dr. J_ H. W_, Ph.D., Clinical Supervisor and LT J_ L. B_, MSC, USNR, Clinical Psychologist:
	(A):  Axis I:  Adjustment Disorder w/mixed emotions and conduct, resolving
	Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS; Cluster B Features
	(P):  SN M_ (Applicant) …manifests a longstanding disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability that is of such severity to preclude adequate military service.  Therefore, in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN 1910-122 expeditious administrative separation for unsuitability is most strongly recommended.  Hospitalization is not warranted at this time.  However, his condition leaves him at high risk for self-harm with continued exposure to the stressors common in the life of the U.S. Navy.

041008:	Medical evaluation, CSG-2/SSSU Medical, J_ G. T_, MD, LT, MC, USNR:
	S:  Follow-up of mental health evaluation initiated for a suicide attempt and self-mutilation.  Applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with concommitment personality disorder.  Applicant denies suicidal/homicidal ideations at this time.  He continues to have “bouts” of depression for which he talks to the mental health group…participating in.
	Impression:
	AXIS I: Adjustment disorder.
	AXIS II: Personality disorder not otherwise specified, cluster B features.  Applicant represents a continued risk to himself or others with continued exposure to the stress of Navy life given this diagnosis.  Therefore, I concur with the mental health recommendation for the command to consider an expeditious administrative separation for unsuitability at this time.
	Plan:  1. Recommend expeditious administrative separation.
	2. Follow up PRN.
	3. Return to clinic for increased suicidal/homicidal ideations.

050125:	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 due to personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

050125:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

050125:	Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Support Center, New London, directed discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious, with separation code JKQ (misconduct – commission of a serious military or civilian offense) and a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).  

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 20050301 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

The Board construed Applicant’s issue to be that it was inequitable for the narrative reason to be misconduct instead of personality disorder.  In accordance with regulation, when separation processing is warranted for any reason in addition to personality disorder (convenience of the government), dual or multiple processing is required.  The Applicant was dual processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder.  The Applicant’s misconduct (which could also have been characterized as a false official statement in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ) is clearly documented in the service record.   The Applicant argues that his misconduct would not have warranted separation absent his personality disorder.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Applicant’s assertion that discharge was not warranted by his misconduct does not overcome the presumption of regularity attaching to the separation authority’s assessment of the appropriate discharge criteria.  Therefore, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  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.  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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, willful dereliction of duty.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

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

E.  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  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”.

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