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




ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00527

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050207. The Applicant requests the 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 list any the representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050602. 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 shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).

---

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I would like my discharge upgraded because I want to go to school. And I can not receive my GI. Bill with a General/Under Honorable Conditions.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Disabled American Veterans):

2. “Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in the request for a discharge upgrade of the current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.

The FSM served on active service from October 2, 2001 to June 13, 2003 at which time she was discharged due to a Personality Disorder.

The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because her psychiatric condition at the time prohibited proper judgment and control, leading to the inappropriate actions.

On May 22, 2003 the Medical Officer provided the statement for the record that the Applicant is diagnosed with a longstanding disorder of character and behavior, a personality disorder with histrionic, narcistic traits. The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.

Historical notes dated April 11, 2003 reflect a series of events by both the Applicant and the Command at that time, denoting the seriousness of the Applicant’s condition and how it negated her ability to use sound judgment. Although she had an extremely supportive command, it appears they also understood the severity of the condition but instead of committing her to prolonged in-patient care, they continued to try and make her a functional member of her crew and the Navy. Actions which, lead to the improper judgment and finality of NJP by that Command. If greater heed had been given to the Medical Officer’s statement from October 8, 2002 and the Applicant had been admitted for care and then discharged for her Personality Disorder, she would have been allowed an Honorable Discharge.

This creates a need for a review of the application of the standard, for the Board to determine that the applicant’s discharge was improper. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. See, SECNAVIST 5420.174 D, Sect. 407, part 3.

Character statements supplied by those that have known the Applicant since her discharge reflect opinions showing a great change in the character of the Applicant. We believe this to be due to her ability to receive full treatment and care for her psychiatric condition, with therapy and medications, and if the same opportunity had been provided while on active duty the Applicant may never have been discharged in such a manner as before the Board.

As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.

Respectfully,
[DAV Representative] ”


Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Statement from Applicant, dated November 22, 2004
Character reference from M_ G_, dated January 19, 2005
Character reference from A_ D. B_, dated January 25, 2005
Character reference from L_ C. G_, dated December 6, 2004

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     010928 - 011001  COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 011002               Date of Discharge: 030613

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 12         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

Highest Rate: SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 1.00 (1)             Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1.00

Military Decorations: None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 104

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

021008:  Progress Notes from Psychiatry Department, Naval Medical Clinic, Portsmouth (verbatim): HPI: This 20 y/o AD BF presented to psychiatry clinic today requesting to be seen by her private MD Dr. Smith. Pt was scheduled to appear at XO Mast today for recurrent absences at her command ACU4 over the past month. Pt claims command has been poor support for social stressors, including an alleged sexual assault 12 August, and yesterday she wanted to hit one petty officer with her car....A: 20 y/o AD F with present Dx of Dysthymia currently on LimDU. Applicant exhibits borderline personality traits and is manipulative with psychiatry in order to achieve goal of disposition to TPU. She exhibits a pattern of misconduct and personality traits inconsistent with future service in the US Navy. It would be in the best interest of the government to administratively separate patient based on the diagnosis of a borderline personality disorder; however, it is unclear if this is possible while patient is on limited duty. Suggest JAG opinion.

021016:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Diagnosis of a personality disorder. Applicant’s present condition not considered a physical disability, however it may be a disqualifying factor in determining Applicant’s suitability for further Naval service.). Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

021017:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications): Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (3 specifications): Failure to obey order or regulation. Date of offenses: 020925-020926, 021008.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 month pay for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

021023:  Medical Record Entry, Psychiatry Department, Naval Medical Clinic,
Portsmouth (verbatim): Pt's limited duty for Dysthemia is terminated and she is recommended for expeditious AdSep based on a Dx of Personality Disorder complicated by Dysthymia -- pt remain a risk for harm to self and others and is noncompliant with treatment attempts. (P) Stop limited duty -- return to full duty. Process via command for expeditious AdSep.

021023:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 1745 this date.

021118:  Vacate suspended reduction awarded at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 021017.

030204:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1030 this date (104 days/ surrendered). EAOS changed to 060113.

030206:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Absence without leave.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification: Failure to obey order or regulation.
         Finding: to Charge I and II and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 30 days.
         CA action. No further information found in service record.
EAOS changed to 051001.

030331:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of convenience of the government -- personality disorder. Least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).

030407:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected all rights.

030411:  Commanding Officer, Assault Craft Unit FOUR recommended discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the Naval service. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): Since reporting, she (Applicant) consistently demonstrated an inability to cope with Navy regulations, despite the significant support provided by her chain of command. Her frequent lack of mi1itary bearing, disruptive behavior and repeated disrespect to both superiors and subordinates has had a negative impact on good order and discipline. Her consistently negative actions, led to CO's NJP...on 17 October 2002. On 8 August 2002, prior to her NJP, and after being informed that she was going to XOI, she left the command without informing her chain of command. On the afternoon of 8 August, Commander F_, the Executive Officer, received a phone call from NAVMEDCEN Portsmouth Psychiatry indicating Seaman C_ (Applicant) was unexpectedly in the clinic demanding to speak with her physician Dr. S_. During the telephone conversation, Dr F_ (Psychiatry) recommended to Commander F_ that the member be expeditiously processed for administrative separation for personality disorder. Additionally, Seaman C_ (Applicant) was ordered by the Executive Officer to return back to the command that evening and report to the CDO with the documents provided by Psychiatry. She failed to do so, resulting in an additional specification for both Arts. 86, and 92. Separation processing for personality disorder commenced by provided member with a page 13 Administrative Counseling and Warning, as required per MILPERSMAN 1910-122 prior to notification procedures. Additionally, her physician removed her from Limited Duty status in order to allow her to be processed for separation. On 17 October 2002, SNM received NJP....Immediately after CO's Mast, she expressed the need to consult with a mental health provider and was taken to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth where she was admitted for approximately 7 days. During her absence the command prepared notification procedures for administrative separation for personality disorder. However, upon her return to the command on 23 October 2002, she commenced a 4-month period of Unauthorized Absence....SNM returned at 1030 on 4 February 2003 and was referred to a Summary Court-Martial....Additionally, due to her misconduct of extensive unauthorized absence, member was processed for administrative separation due to Commission of a Serious Offense. An Administrative Board was convened which voted misconduct, however, recommended retention in the Naval Service. In view of the serious medical diagnosis still in pending, I am not confident that Seaman C_(Applicant) possesses the ability to adjust to a demanding military environment, without compromising the safety of herself and her shipmates. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that Seaman C_ (Applicant) be expeditiously separated from the Naval Service for personality disorder.

030424:  Applicant in unauthorized absence status from 0700 to 1236 this date.

030522:  Medical Officer Evaluation, Psychiatry Department, Naval Medical Clinic, Portsmouth (verbatim): The evaluating psychiatrist found that the patient referred by your command has no psychiatric disease or condition that would be responsive to therapy. However, the patient has a longstanding disorder of character and behavior, a personality disorder with histrionic, narcissistic, and borderline traits, which makes them more likely to become or remain a disciplinary or other problem during their time in service and repeatedly interfere with their serving successfully in the Navy. The patient is likely to have recurrent suicidal gestures, unstable relationships, and occupational problems. Her pattern of misconduct will most likely continue based on psychological evaluation (end verbatim). The MO recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.

030606:  Commander, Amphibious Group TWO directed the Applicant's discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government -- personality disorder.

030623:  Commanding Officer, Assault Craft Unit FOUR informed Commander, Naval Personnel Command (PERS 832) of Applicant’s discharge on 030613 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government -- personality disorder. Diagnosis of personality disorder was of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the Naval service.

---

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030613 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. (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).

Issue 1: 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 on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Issue 2: The Applicant’s representative, Disabled American Veterans, argues on the Applicant's behalf that her psychiatric condition at the time prohibited proper judgment and control, leading to her misconduct. DAV further argues that this condition sufficiently mitigates her misconduct to the point of warranting an upgrade to her characterization of service. The Applicant is advised that the presence of a diagnosed personality disorder does not mitigate nor excuse a service member's misconduct. Further, a personality disorder does not imply incompetence nor bar a service member from continuing his or her service. T he Applicant's competence is reflected in t he Medical Officer Evaluation of 030522, which states that the Applicant is to be held strictly accountable for her actions. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Applicant was not responsible for her misconduct or that she should not be held accountable for that misconduct. Relief on this basis is therefore denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded, based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. Examples of documentation that


should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. 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 other evidence related to her 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 1910-122 (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 II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 .

---

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