Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01252
Original file (ND03-01252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-IS2, USN
Docket No. ND03-01252

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030721. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to Expiration of Term of Service. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040515. 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. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/ CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 “1. The discharge was improper because there was no evidence of a “physical Condition not a Disability” (JFV) and that is the reason listed on my DD-214. There was some evidence given of a personality disorder but I was not given the six-month probationary period to show my continued fitness for active duty. If it would be against statute to list my discharge as Expiration of Term of Service (JBK) then I request to receive Early Release - Other (JDM). The letter codes listed may be incorrect as that data is not available to the general public.

2. Furthermore, my reenlistment code should be changed to RE-I since I was not allowed to stay on active duty and was denied due process. I was notified of the command’s decision to discharge me and requested to appear before the board to show that I should remain on active duty. In the records pursuant to my discharge the command clearly states that no board was held even though I had over 8 years of active duty. This was a clear violation of my due process.

3. Lastly I was issued a Page 13 prior to my discharge stating that I was being retained in naval service. However the same letter stated that I must receive an expeditious administrative separation in paragraph 2. In paragraph 5, the letter states that if I do not receive a separation as corrective action I can receive an administrative separation.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Seventeen pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940121 - 940509  COG
         Active: USN                        940510 - 980625  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980626               Date of Discharge: 020906

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4 (19 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 86

 Highest Rate: IS2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (4)    Behavior: 3.75 (4)                OTA: 3.79

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: JSAM, GCM (2) NDSM (2), N&MCOR (2), Letter of Commendation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

HONORABLE/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980626:  Applicant reenlisted for 4 years.

 020610:  Medical Evaluation ordered by Military Judge: Assessment: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, resolved. Partner relational problem, resolved. Axis II: Schizotypal personality disorder, reconstituting. Axis III: None. Axis IV: legal difficulties – resolving. Axis V: GAF 61. Plan: 1. FFD for the sole purpose of administrative separation. 2. Continue Risperidal 2mg po ghs. 3. FU with Dr. C_ as scheduled. 4. FU with Dr. W_ as scheduled. 5. An administrative separation for a non-disabling condition, personality disorder, is recommended in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN 1910-120.
020610:  Medical Evaluation: Diagnoses: Axis I: Schizophrenia, paranoid type, single episode in partial remission with medications. Axis II: Schizotypal personality disorder (premorbid).

020719:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (As a result of your evaluation at the Makalapa Mental Health Clinic on 020610, it has been determined that you are not suitable for continued naval service.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of pending discharge action.
020719:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service.
020719:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
020807:  Commanding Officer directed discharge honorable by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a. physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020906 with an honorable for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability. (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 1-3: The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to supersede the presumption that the Applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder. The personality disorder was diagnosed by a competent medical authority on 20020610. The Applicant’s page 13 dated 20020719 clearly explained that the Applicant was being notified of immediate discharge action due to his medical diagnosis. The evidence reviewed did not persuade the Board that this diagnosis and subsequent administrative separation was improper or inequitable. Relief denied.

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. He was diagnosed by qualified medical officers as possessing a long-standing disorder of character and behavior of such severity as to interfere with serving adequately in the Navy. The applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated for a Personality Disorder. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement 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 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 to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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 Present, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS.

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 “ afls14.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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01034

    Original file (ND99-01034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. 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. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00249

    Original file (ND02-00249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you Documentation Applicant did not provide any additional documentation for the Board to consider, therefore, only the Applicant's service and medical records were reviewed. Corrective action provided.Note: No record of counseling/retention warning in official record documenting how personality disorder has effected performance, nor did a period of time elapse for the Applicant to correct any deficiencies as specifically related to his personality disorder.920730: Applicant notified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00952

    Original file (ND04-00952.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “I was discharged for medical reasons & should have received an Honorable 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00762

    Original file (ND02-00762.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR arrived at RTC on March 15, 1999 and was referred because SR stated that he was depressed and appeared unmotivated. SR is suitable to report to Separations Division.990401: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service possible as General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the Government due to physical or mental conditions as evidenced by a depressive disorder under MILPERMSAN...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01087

    Original file (ND01-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My DD 214 form states my discharge as being uncharacterized and I am requesting that it be changed to show as being an Honorable Discharge. The Board found that a characterization of service of Entry Level Separation was warranted in this case, as the applicant was processed for separation prior to serving six months on active duty. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01137

    Original file (ND01-01137.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Separation Authority dtd Jul 7, 1999 Separation Notification and Statement of Awareness dtd 6 Jul 1999 Recruit Mental Health Evaluation dtd 1 Jul 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 980828 - 990623 COG Period of Service Under Review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01105

    Original file (ND04-01105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant states, “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on actions and/or behavior of the recruiting officer, and not solely on my behavior and/or actions while enlisted in the U.S. Navy.” The Applicant was discharged for a condition not a disability as a result of his diagnosis by competent medical authority. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. As of this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00791

    Original file (ND03-00791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to 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 but not equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500677

    Original file (ND0500677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 31 Highest Rate: AN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.25 (4) Behavior: 2.25 (4) OTA: 3.07 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00491

    Original file (ND04-00491.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00491 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040204. After repeated requests to my superiors, and visits with the Chaplain, I was referred for psychological evaluation. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.