Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00349
Original file (ND02-00349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PC3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00349

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to "Trf to Fleet Reserve and Released from AD". 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 020912. 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 reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/ PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 ISSUE 1
My discharge was inequitable because I never met the diagnostic criteria for a Personality Disorder. I did not make any verbal or written expression of wanting to "kill someone," nor did my conduct ever interfere with my work. Persons meeting these diagnostic criteria often display patterns of misconduct, which include Civil and Military convictions. I have neither of the two, and my faultless discipline record is proof.

 ISSUE 2
 The MHE (Mental Health Evaluation) I received on May 13, 1999 was the result of false accusations, of which I was later exonerated at a GCM (General Court Martial), (Document 4). The MHP (Mental Health Professional) made his conclusions based upon the biased assumption that I committed an offense that never even occurred. The only reason I was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder is because such a finding prohibits a defendant from using a plea of insanity at a criminal trial. This diagnosis was not the result of a factual incident, but mire puffery.

 ISSUE 3
I contend that my discharge 14 months after being exonerated at a general CM for actions and statements I never made or committed was improper. There has never been evidence of disciplinary problems during my Marine Corps or Navy career (Documents 3,8, and 9). I was treated as a valued member of Naval Air Station Sigonella, Sicily, Italy and served as a Military Police Officer before slanderous, false accusations led to the public defamation of my character. Requiring an individual to perform for an additional 14 months, then to discharge him based upon previous unsubstantiated actions and statements is both improper and unethical.

 ISSUE 4
My discharge was completely unrelated to a personality disorder; the fact of the matter is that I presented the base Commanding Officer Capt. A. N_ with a serious equal opportunity issue, which he did not want to address. After being exonerated of all charges and specifications of UCMJ Article 128 at a GCM (General Court Martial) October 1999 I became the perpetual subject of NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) harassment, workplace harassment, and was maliciously perused by the FAP (Family Advocacy Program) for a crime that never occurred (Documents 16 and 4). In the five years of my military career (prior to the false charges of which I was found not guilty by a jury), I never had any incidents of such harassment, and I do not think the nature of the charges was relevant. I believe that once a name is introduced to departments such as NCIS and FAP whose jobs depend upon the existence of a criminal element, that they will continually peruse this individual for their own benevolent reasons.

Ten months after being exonerated of these charges I was placed on legal hold past my rotation date, and lost my orders because I refused to make false official statements to FAP counselors. After being declared a FAP "failure" I requested mast to the NAS Sigonella Commanding Officer, Capt. N_, and made the argument that the FAP case against me was unfair because the counselors required that I confess to the very crime for which I was exonerated in order to "pass" their program, and I refused to make any false statements in actual malice that would tarnish my family name, and that of The Marine Corps (I accept this responsibility as a Former Marine to preserve the honor of the title).

I stated to Capt. N_ that to prohibit me from an overseas tour due to this FAP case was also unfair because I was not the offender of a crime. The only reason FAP became involved in this case was because they needed "participants" for their men's group. I even had to wait three months for this program to begin because the FAP CRC (Case Review Committee) needed time to substantiate enough cases to have a group. The program was not initiated due to numerous substantiated cases at NAS Sigonella, numerous cases were substantiated so the FSC (Family Service Center) could conduct this program and satisfy the wants of their bosses in Washington D.C.

I then stated to Capt. N_ that because I was innocent of any crime, that not affording me the opportunity to choose from available orders just as my co-workers had been doing was unjustifiable discrimination, and that I intended to pursue this issue until justice was served. During this request mast session the CO made several sarcastic comments about The Marine Corps, probably with the hope that I would become balergent and he would have justification to dismiss me from his office, but I remained silent. I believe that he did not want to deal with such a sensitive issue. The nature of the sensitivity is that Capt. N_ gave his signature of approval on every action taken against me by FAP, and as the Convening Authority also signed the GCM documents recognizing that I was found not guilty in a court of law for committing the same crime for which FAP was declaring my guilt, (both the FAP case and GCM were a result of the alleged incident from May 13, 1999 Documents 4 and 16), hence, creating a paradox with himself as the nucleus.

The CO promised to give me a response within a week, but he communicated no answer to this situation to me in any form. The next week I was notified by the SJA (Staff Judge Advocate) that I was being administratively separated for FAP failure under MILPERSMCN 1910-162 (reference Document 5 to verify this statement). In my opinion this action was backdated at the request of Capt. N_ to show that it was initiated before our request mast session. If the document were indeed authentic he would have introduced it into our discussion, and why did it take two weeks to get from SJA to me? I had been in their office during this time period. During the request mast session Capt. N_ even threatened to NJP (Non Judicial Punishment) me for "failing" the FAP program, which was a completely asinine statement. It was clear that the CO's answer to this situation was to neglect it, or "sweep it under the rug," so to speak.

After declaring otherwise, the SJA stated to me that my 4 years of service in the Marine Corps didn't count toward my eligibility to elect an administrative board prior to an administrative separation. I was told that the separation was a closed case because "the CO has already signed off on it," and I just needed to sign the documents. I explained to the LN1 that we were going to follow due process of law, which did entitle me to elect an administrative board, and he should contact my lawyer. I was then given the option to elect the board. I do not feel that the LN1 would have spoken in such actual malice unless there was undue influence from senior officials.

May 13, 1999 was the beginning of 18 months of continuous harassment by NCIS, my workplace, and FAP, the stress began to effect my ability to steep, and I came to work late a few times. I told my supervisor that I had trouble sleeping, but he only gave me a written counseling. After 14 months I finally committed a trivial act of nonviolent civil disobedience and wrote some juvenal statements, on these counseling chits, one of which was a quote from President N_ "I am not a crook," (these chits were not NAVPERS 1070/613, they were in-house documents that I knew could not be placed into a member's Service Record, I never received a derogatory page 13 in the Navy, or a page 11 in The USMC). I wrote these meaningless statements in protest because I had learned that no matter how hard I worked I would be treated as a "dirt bag," and I decided to make the experience memorable. This was very immature and quite unbecoming a person of my education level, but at the time I needed something about which I could laugh, and my LPO's reaction was satisfactory. I would like to note that I was not being counseled for disruptive misconduct, but tardiness.
I was threatened by my LPO after again coming to work late; I then demanded to see a Chaplin. I immediately went to the Base Chaplin's Office, and the only Chaplin in the building was LtCdr. Father H_ He told me to come back later because he was busy. I told him I really needed to talk to someone, and he reluctantly sat down with me. He asked, "So what's your problem?" I told him I was being harassed at work. He asked, "So they are all out to get you huh?" I responded by saying "in short yes, but there is more to it than that." Without speaking he picked up the telephone and made me an appointment for a HME, preceded to tell me that I was fat, told me to pray, then said he was busy and that I had to leave. We spoke for less than five minutes.
I was not going to attend that MHE until the MHP (Mental Health Professional) who was obviously trying to gather negative information about my character called and spoke to my LPO (Lead Petty Officer) and said that I was to be escorted to the MHE. It was not as if there was anything I could say to a psychiatrist that would enable me to accept my orders and escape Sigonella. I did not participate in this MHE of my own free will. August 21, 2000 I attended this MHE, I said only "good afternoon," and "have a nice day" to Lt. Dr. H_ while he sat before me asking provoking questions like "how did you get away with it?" I felt no need to speak, because anything I said would have been contorted into a statement of wanting to "kill someone."

Lt. H_ said he was going to recommend me for separation as he did in May 1999 the first time we met, I gave no response, and he became quite angry when I refused to do more than look him in the eyes. Lt. H_ wrote in his evaluation that I was sent to this MHE because of statements I wrote on my counseling chits, this is a complete misrepresentation of fact, I was sent to the MBE because in a act of causation LtCdr Father H_ neglected his obligation as a man of the cloth to a fellow human being, I wasn't acting in a manner dangerous to myself or others; I just wanted to talk to someone who would keep our conversation private. I believe that persevering through 14 months of such an infliction of emotional distress entitled me to speak with a Chaplin.

I believe that Capt. N_ underestimated my professional military knowledge when he attempted to have me separated for FAP failure, if he thought I understood my rights, the process of administrative separation never would have been initiated. After the MHE was sent to the SJA they dropped the FAP charges and decided to separate me for a Reason of Convenience of the Government (COG) - Personality Disorder as per MILPERSMAN 1910-122. Had I taken this issue to an administrative board the government would have lost, because there are no facts to substantiate that I have ever acted in such a manner "dangerous to myself or others." Furthermore there is no physical evidence that I committed any wrong acts, nor have there ever been any witnesses who have testified to seeing me commit such an act at work or home. The statement of wanting to "kill someone" was a phrase forged on a document by a corrupt NCIS agent after I had already given him my signature while in a state of duress.

NCIS Agent D_ E. G_ typed a statement in his own words and promised that if I signed his statement that he would take me home and "this whole thing would be over." If you examine Document 14 you will see that the statement of "I'm going to kill you" is not even in my handwriting . I only remember failing asleep in the interrogation room after 13 hours of apprehension while Agent G_ exited and entered the room several times telling me to initial different places on this document.

This statement was such a blatant forgery that the prosecution allowed this passage stricken from the version seen by the jury at my GCM as seen in Document 15. I believe that Agent G_ probably told the prosecuting attorney as privileged information that he had forged the statement, and the prosecuting attorney did not want any allegations of police corruption adding to the instability of an already weak case. As well, Lt. Dr. H_ was not called as a witness for the prosecution to tell the jury that I had a violent NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) Antisocial Personality Disorder, this only would have given more instability to the argument of the prosecution when Lt. H_ would have been asked what patterns of misconduct I presented that led him to such a diagnosis (Documents 12 and 13). By the time this case went to trial I had almost six years of military service with not so much as a written counseling, this MEE was clearly based upon this isolated incident that never occurred. During the five and a half months from the alleged incident to the beginning of trial, NCIS became so desperate to find something against me that they sent agents to harass my girlfriend in Japan, and my ex-wife in North Carolina. NCIS found absolutely no evidence to support any accusations of violent misconduct, because it did not exist. I believe the SJA was waiting for me to commit an offense so the current charges would be dropped and I could be charged with a crime that was actually feasible. I would like to note that NCIS agent G_ would periodically loiter at my current work center, (The NAS CBQ where I worked as Bldg. Manager). Had the GCM not convened when it did, the SJA would have been forced to drop the charges, then show just cause to have them filed again.

I believe cases where NCIS agents commit reprehensible acts of forgery and entrapment against young military members occur often (The USS Iowa incident involving C. H_, K. T_, and J. M_), most members are involved in less public issues and scared to defend the issue at CM so they request NJP that results in an eventual discharge for misconduct. My case is different because I did not allow my JAG lawyer to request NJP, as he desired, I was innocent, and I knew that in a court of law, after both sides present their case that the truth would present itself at trial, regardless of what lies were told in the prelude.

However, I do not believe that the harassment would have ended after winning at an administrative board, it actually increased a year earlier after being exonerated of charges at the GCK and I was still on legal hold for this very reason. I contest that the NAS Sigonelia COC (Chain Of Command) would have continued to fabricate reasons to separate me until Capt. N_ transferred; I feel that he interpreted my valid legal point as an attempt to undermine his authority because I was only an E-4. With this in mind I went to the SJA and negotiated an alternative dispute resolution, I told the LN1 to relay to Capt. N_ that if I were guaranteed an HONORABLE discharge, and allowed to remain on station until I finished the college class in which I was currently enrolled, that I would waive the admin board, not to say that I agreed with the situation, but I had simply lost the will to fight. Two days later the LN1 called me at work and told me we had a deal.

This two month period of time between the agreement and my PCS (Permanent Change of Station) was the quietest of my entire tour at Sigonella, NCIS quit calling me to their office on false charges every two weeks, FAP quit sending threatening letters, I still got treated like trash at work, but my situation had improved.

I ask the board to take into account all the evidence I have supplied (especially Documents 5 and 10 ), as well as any evidence they may desire from outside sources to aid the decision process and correct this injustice so that I might once again be allowed to serve my country.

As Dr. M_ L_ K_, Jr. stated, "injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere."
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of DD Form 214 from the U.S. Marine Corps
Copy of DD Form 215
General Court-Martial Order No. 5-99 Offenses, Pleas, and Findings
Memo from LT B_ H. S_, JAGC, USN, DTD 8 Feb 00
Separation Authority, CO, U.S. NAS Sigonella, dtd 19 Oct 00
Administration Separation Package dtd 19 Oct 00 (8 pages)
Applicant's Photo in Marine Uniform
Marine Service Record Book (14 pages)
Navy Service Record (21 pages)
Applicant's detailed account of the events (29 pages)
Pretrial Restriction Order dtd 14 May 99 (3 pages)
Notification of mental health evaluation and patient rights dtd 14 May 99 (3 pages)
Mental Health - Psychological Evaluation, dtd 20 May 99 (5 pages)
Applicant's NCIS Statement w/o omitted sections dtd 14 May 99 (3 pages)
Applicant's NCIS Statement w/ omitted sections dtd 14 May 99 (3 pages)
 Freedom of Information Act Request dtd 24 May 00 whereby providing applicant with requested information about FAP (128 pages)
Applicant's letter to the Board of explanation dtd Jan 12, 2002
Psychological Evaluation (R. L. S_, Ph.D., P.A.) dtd Aug 27, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

          Inactive: USMC            971105 - 980322  COG (To enlist USN)
         Active: USMC              940105 - 971105  HON (RELACDU)

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980323               Date of Discharge: 001205

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 08 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rate: PC3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.0 (4)     Behavior: 2.75 (4))               OTA: 2.89 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFSM, NMCOSR, NUC, Nato Medal, LoC, MUC, NDSM, SSDR, Rifle Expert Badge(2), GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990520:  Mental Health Dept, U.S. Naval Hospital, Sigonella, Italy: 23 year old currently working with Auxiliary Security Force. He was referred by his command to evaluate for his fitness for duty and to complete a diagnostic evaluation. Data available for his eval included review of his medical record, psychological testing, a diagnostic interview, and his NCIS testimony completed on 14 May 99. Prior to this diagnostic interview, the pt had met with an attorney who counseled him to limit his information be submitted in the present interview.
Diagnostic Impression:
AXIS I: No Diagnosis
AXIS II: Personality Disorder NOS with Antisocial and Schizotypal features.
AXIS III: No Diagnosis
Summary Conclusions: Pt's history, current presentation, psychological testing, and outside information suggest he has severe and pervasive deficits in his character. His history shows a pattern of manipulation, deceitfulness, and reckless disregard for others' safety and well being. This pattern is colored by his odd beliefs, distorted thinking, and mild paranoia and anxiety within close relationships. As a result, he shows little regard for those to whom he is close. Moreover, when he does attempt to act on their behalf or express his feelings, he does so in non-conventional and bizarre ways. These at times may be violent and abusive, although he does not perceive his behaviors as such. He has enough "street smarts," however, to present himself in a favorable light with work colleagues and social acquaintances such that his distorted beliefs, interests, and actions would not be foreseeable by others. This pattern is consistent with a Personality Disorder that is not conducive to retention in the U.S. Navy.
Recommendations:
1. Pt considered unsuitable for continued service. His personality is such he will not respond to medication or brief psychotherapy. While he is not acutely suicidal or homicidal, over time he will likely re-engage in non-conventional relationships with others, which may lead to further risk of injury to others. In the immediate future, he will be an administrative burden and therefore compromise the mission to his command.
2. Pt is considered responsible and competent for his behavior. He has a clear understanding of right and wrong behavior, is aware of potential consequences for his actions, and is able to participate in his own defense of past behaviors.
3. Pt does not desire any form of psychological interventions. As such, none are recommended.
4. Above recommendations were not discussed with Pt. He was informed the results and recommendations would be forwarded to his command who requested his referral.
990608:  CO, U.S. Naval Hospital, Sigonella advises command that applicant referred to Mental Health Clinic after a) his alleged physical abuse of B_ O_, a four year old child living under his care, and b) his alleged verbal expressions of wanting to "kill someone." Staff psychologist evaluated him on 20 May 96.
Diagnosis is: AXIS I: No Diagnosis; AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS with Antisocial and Schizotypal features; AXIS III: No Diagnosis.
Member has been diagnosed with a disorder of personality that renders him unsuitable for continued naval service. Although not currently suicidal or homicidal, over time he will likely re-engage in non-conventional relationships with others, which my lead to further risk of injury to others. In the immediate future, he will be an administrative and medical burden. Mr. C_ does not desire any form of psychological interventions. As such, none are recommended. For these reasons, expeditious administrative separation is recommended.

000907:  CO, U.S. Naval Hospital, Sigonella, advises command that applicant was evaluated by staff psychologist on 21 Aug 00. PC3 C_ was referred by his command after writing several bizarre statements in the comments section of three separate counseling chits he had received in the previous three weeks. PC3 C_ voluntarily participated in the assessment. Member diagnosed with Personality Disorder NOS with Antisocial and Schizotypal traits. Pt does not possess a severe mental disease or defect for purpose of RCM-706 exam and is considered competent. Although not imminently suicidal or homicidal he is found to be a continued risk of harm to himself and/or others, especially with increased personal or work related stress.
000915:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an honorable by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.
000915:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
001019:  Commanding Officer advised CNPC that applicant recommended for an honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): "On 20 May 1999, a mental health doctor evaluated PC3 C_ (Applicant) for his alleged physical abuse of a child, and his verbal expressions of wanting to "kill someone.” He was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) with Antisocial and Schizotypal features. At this time, separation was not warranted, as there was no documented evidence PC3 C_ was a risk to himself or others.
         On 21 Aug 2000, PC3 C_ was referred once again to the Mental Health Clinic after writing unusual statements in the comments section of his counseling chits on three separate occasions. The evaluation revealed pervasive and severe deficits in his character consistent with a personality disorder.
         PC3 C_'s conduct manifests long-standing character and behavior disorder of such severity that he is unable to serve adequately in the naval service. Although not imminently suicidal, he is a risk to himself and others .
         Based on his conduct and the associated medical documentation, I direct PC3 C_ be separated from the naval service with an Honorable discharge. PC3 C_'s conduct does not reflect the Navy's Core Values of Honor, Courage and Commitment. He has no potential for further naval service."

001019:  Commanding Officer, U.S. NAS, Sigonella directed the applicant's discharge with an honorable by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 001205 with an honorable characterization of service for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder. (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).

 Issues 1-4: The Board determined the Applicant’s issues are without merit. The Applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) with Antisocial and Schizotypal features by competent medical authority at the Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Sigonella. The initial diagnosis included a recommendation that the Applicant was considered unsuitable for continued service, but did not specifically state that the Applicant was at risk of harm to himself or others at the time. The mere presence of a personality disorder is not a bar to Naval Service. And the Applicant was not initially processed for separation. Service members may be separated for personality disorders provided (1) a medical diagnosis is made by competent military medical authority which concludes that member's disorder is of such severity as to render member incapable of serving adequately in the Naval Service; (2) there is documented interference with performance of duty; and (3) counseling in accordance with paragraph 4 of NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200 is completed. The only exception is in cases where the military medical authority has evaluated the member as being self-destructive and/or a continuing danger to him or herself and others. In these cases, immediate processing for administrative separation may be initiated. This does not imply automatic approval of the discharge request, only expeditious consideration (C, Part IV).

After a second Mental Health Evaluation (MHE) the Applicant was found to be at continued risk of harm to himself and or others, especially with increased personal or work related stress, (A, Part IV) pertains. The Applicant’s MHE was conducted by competent medical authority. Thus, the Board finds that the Reason for Discharge accurately reflects the Applicant's mental health status at the time of his discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance. The Applicant’s contention that the Personality Disorder did not exist at the time of discharge and does not currently exist (supported by most recent psychological evaluation) does not provide a legitimate basis to alter the historical record. The Board found the official record devoid of evidence that the discharge was not properly executed, nor did the Applicant provide certifiable documentation to support his claim that there was any impropriety regarding his discharge. The Board determined that Personality Disorder is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant's discharge. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the Applicant’s edification. A Personality Disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV), Multiaxial Assessment System is a format used to list diagnoses in a specific order. The system involves an assessment on several axes, each of which refers to a different domain of information that may help a clinician plan a patient’s treatment and predict outcome. Axis I is for reporting all the various disorders or conditions (including Mental Disorders, Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders) in the DSM-IV Classification except for Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation (which are reported on Axis II). The listing of Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation on a separate axis (Axis II) ensures that consideration will be given to the possible presence of Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation that might otherwise be overlooked when attention is directed to the usually more florid Axis I disorders. The coding of Personality Disorders on Axis II should not be taken to imply that their pathogenesis or range of appropriate treatment is fundamentally different from that for the disorders coded on Axis I. The Applicant’s personality disorder was properly coded on Axis II of the diagnosis. The use of the DSM-IV, Multiaxial Assessment System format is optional and has no bearing on the validity of the diagnosis, only the format by which it is reported. For a more thorough understanding of the DSM-IV, Multiaxial Assessment system consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Copyright © 1994 American Psychiatric Association pages 25 through 35 inclusive (C).

Concerning the Applicant’s desire to be allowed to serve his country. The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. 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 done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective
27 March 2000 until 13 Aug 2001, 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 “ 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600001

    Original file (ND0600001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00001 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. 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 1 and 4) Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd April 5, 2005 E-mail from NAS PENSACOLA, dtd March 29, 2005 Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record Four hundred and seventy-five pages from Applicant’s medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01370

    Original file (ND03-01370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01370 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030814. F_ if there was anything the Navy could do to help me, but she told me there was nothing. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600165

    Original file (ND0600165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. After returning from treatment, the member states she did not gamble at all for nearly 9 months, and then in July 01, she began to gamble excessively again. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600099

    Original file (ND0600099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00099 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051012. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). It was then that another discharge was recommended, but this time the Captain signed it.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500883

    Original file (MD0500883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00883 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050421. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Job/Character Reference ltr from P_ A. J_, Mr Tux Leominster, dtd July 14, 2005 Job/Character Reference ltr from C_ I_, Regional Manager, Mr. Tux/Squire Tux, dtd July 12, 2005 (unsigned) Character reference ltr frm D_ S_, undtd Letter from City...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01174

    Original file (ND99-01174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01174 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 980215: Mental Health Clinic, USS INDEPENDENCE: Pt, Pt's DivOff, Pt's LCPO and this provider met with pt in conference to clarify pt's short/long term goals. AXIS III: No known or reported medical conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500967

    Original file (ND0500967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The DD-2 14 stated that I received a General- Under Honorable discharge, because of a personality disorder . Furthermore, medical authorities determined that Seaman Recruit P_(Applicant) may become a threat to harm himself or others if retained.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20011228 by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501344

    Original file (ND0501344.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was sent TAD from my own command to be masted, against the wishes of my own commanding officer, command master chief~, and chain of command, which requested that I receive a counseling statement for a minor infraction. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.970131: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501045

    Original file (ND0501045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050606. The Commanding Officers. Appeal denied 031103.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense-misconduct.031008: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600189

    Original file (ND0600189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00189 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051107. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Treatment Plan: 8 months LIMDU away for stressor, Depakote for treatment of impulse control/lability, Individual psychotheraphy @ Fleet and Family services, NMCP outpatient crisis intervention program Limitations: Shore duty only – no weekends, nights, or rotating shifts.