Title: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Author: CAP
Last saved by: jennifer.miles
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND10-00929

ex-FR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100223
Characterization of Service Received: (per DD 214) UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (per DD 214) PERSONALITY DISORDER
Authority for Discharge: (corrected) MILPERSMAN 3620225 [PERSONALITY DISORDER]

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	HONORABLE
	Narrative Reason change to:	MEDI CAL

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19960320 - 19960908  COG	Active:	NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19960909	Age at Enlistment:  17 (PARENTAL CONSENT)
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years  NO Extension
Date of Discharge:  19970324	Highest Rank/Rate:  FR
Length of Service:  00 Year(s)   06  Month(s)   16 Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  78
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Periods of UA/CONF:  NONE

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

Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: “MILPERSMAN 3620225”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 11 December 1997, Article 3620225, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PERSONALITY DISORDER.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant seeks an upgrade based on completion of recruit training and ‘A’ School curriculum.
2.	Applicant seeks an upgrade based on having no legal problems during his period of service.
3.	Applicant seeks an upgrade on the contention ‘Entry Level Separation’ is no longer utilized.
4.	Applicant seeks an upgrade based on VA Decision Letter rating him with 30% disability.
5.	Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20110331	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION).
By a vote of 5-0 the Narrative Reason shall remain PERSONALITY DISORDER.

Discussion

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 Applicant identified five decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  
The Board completed 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 6 month and 16 day record of service did not contain any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishments or trial by courts-martial.  The records did reflect the Applicant received a pre-service drug waiver for admitting to the use of an hallucinogenic drug (LSD) one time, in addition to the five-time use of marijuana prior to entering the Navy.  The service and medical records reflect the Applicant completed Recruit Training in November 1996 and commenced training for his rating as a Machinist Mate (MM) shortly thereafter.  While undergoing MM training, the records state the Applicant increasingly became irritable, angry, depressed, fatigued, experienced problems with eating (lack of hunger), sleeplessness, sleep walking, and would exhibit periods of uncontrollable crying.  These events culminated in the Applicant reportedly jumping off of a bridge and running out in front of a vehicle that precipitated the Command Chaplain to refer the Applicant to medical for emergency medical intervention and evaluation.

The Applicant was interviewed and evaluated from 11-14 Feb 1997.  On 14 Feb 1997, the evaluating psychologist reported that the Applicant had revealed that his mother died unexpectedly from cancer approximately five years earlier, which caused him to experience severe depression for approximately six months in which he lost the desire to eat (loss of 20 lbs body weight) and sleep, while exhibiting periods of uncontrollable crying and feelings of self-blame regarding his mother’s death.  The report states the Applicant did not receive any counseling or therapy and seemed to improve throughout the rest of his junior and senior high school education.  During the interview, he admitted to the physician that he enlisted in the Navy to distract himself from the depression that he continued to experience.  He also revealed that he had used LSD every few weeks in high school while also smoking marijuana 1-2 times per week.  While reviewing the records, the Board noted that the Applicant blatantly lied about the frequency and volume of his use of hallucinogenic and other illegal drugs, his alcohol abuse (under the age of 21), and also deceptively answered ‘NO’ to questions asking “whether you ever had or have you now” experienced periods of sleep trouble, depression or excessive worry, and nervous trouble on the SF93 Report of Medical History Form required during pre-enlistment processing.  The staff psychologist diagnosed the Applicant as follows: Depressive Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified); Alcohol Dependent (age 18 on day of report); LSD and Marijuana use; Sleep Walking; and Dependent Personality.  The physician in his recommendation to the Commanding Officer stated “Given the member’s prior history of depressive disorder (with likelihood of continued recurrence), Alcohol Dependence (for which he declines treatment), and reported sleep walking disorder (with reported witnesses), he is not deemed qualified to report to Fleet duty.  He is being strongly recommended for administrative separation based on above diagnoses and ACDU time of under six months.  Member is considered to present a continuing danger to himself and others should expeditious separation not be undertaken.”  Based on the Applicant’s in-service performance and the staff psychologist’s recommendation, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer processed him for administrative separation in accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  When 

notified of administrative separation processing using the notification procedure on 18 Feb 1997, the Applicant waived his rights to submit a written statement and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Board could not determine whether he exercised or waived his right to consult with a qualified counsel.  On 18 Feb 1997 he also refused, in writing, to participate in treatment (Level III in-patient) for alcohol dependency.  The Applicant was discharged from the Navy on 24 Mar 1997 with an Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation) for Personality Disorder in accordance with the MILPERSMAN section 3620225.

Issues 1-2:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade based on completion of Recruit Training and ‘A’ School curriculum, and because he had no legal problems during his period of service.  The Board conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s service and medical records to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative separation from the Navy.  After considering all the available evidence, the Board concluded that the Applicant’s separation from the Navy for Personality Disorder was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation.  Therefore, this issue was found to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.

Issue 3:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade on the contention that Entry Level Separation is no longer used.  Per the MILPERSMAN, separations initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty will be described as an Entry Level Separation except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (OTH) is more appropriate or Honorable is clearly warranted.  The Applicant had no misconduct that would rate an OTH discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving meritorious personal conduct and performance of military duty that would clearly warrant the characterization of service as Honorable.  A characterization of service under six months (180 days of continuous active duty) as Honorable is approved on a case-by-case basis only by the Secretary of the Navy.  Therefore, an Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation) discharge is considered the most appropriate characterization of service.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade based on a VA Decision Letter rating him with 30% disability for Major Depressive Disorder.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for post-service benefits and awards specific benefits based on Federal laws and statutes governing veteran’s affairs.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge based solely on benefit decisions made by the VA.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Accordingly, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for an upgrade.  The Applicant provided documentation that included: a Department of Veterans Affairs Decision Letter, an undergraduate university transcript, and a business card portraying his employment position supporting the Illinois House of Representatives.  The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant's character or an aberration.  However, there is no law or regulation that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  After conducting a detailed review of the Applicant’s service and medical records, the Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity regarding his separation from the Navy for Personality Disorder.

Further, in consideration of the available documentation in the record, the Board noted that the Applicant could very well have been processed and separated for Fraudulent Entry for not revealing his history of severe depression and repeated use of illicit drugs to include LSD and marijuana.  The NDRB, however, cannot downgrade discharges and so, based on all the available evidence and the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation, the Board determined that this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service and medical record entries, and administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable.  Therefore, the awarded character of service shall remain UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain  PERSONALITY DISORDER.  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), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 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:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  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 	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	CC - Civilian conviction	CCU - Correctional Custody Unit	BW - 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