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


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


ex-EM3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00266

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051130 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable . The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 2006100 6 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, i nequity 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 change to HONORABLE. The narrative reason for discharge shall remain other physical/mental conditions – personality disorder.

---

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and attached document/letter:

“ The characterization of my discharge was inequitable because it appears to be based solely on my personality disorder diagnosis and not on my 12 months of exemplary service. ”

“Reason For Change Narrative

The following narrative explains the material facts of my military career, the circumstances surrounding my discharge from active duty, and the reasons why I request that my Character of Service entry be upgraded from “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” to “Honorable.”

During 1991, beginning in January and ending in December, I was in the US Navy. I served as an enlisted service member with a rating of EM (Electrician’s Mate) and rank of E4 — Petty Officer Third Class. I had enlisted under the Nuclear Program, which involved approximately 2 years of training and schooling including basic training. For this training and the signing bonus, a six year commitment was required.

My time spent in basic training was actually enjoyable. After the initial shock of military life, which lasted the first week or so, I adapted well. I eventually became a flag bearer for our company and also served as the “Recruit Chaplain” (RC). This entailed going to special meetings with the clergy and other RCs as well as acting as a spiritual servant to the company. I earned satisfactory marks on my evaluations and was proud to be serving in the US Navy. During this time, I was an E3.

The next phase of my training and education involved the Nuclear Field Electrician’s Mate “A” School. Again, I was scoring high on my exams and doing very well in my classes. Again, I was earning very good marks (3.6) on my evaluations and upon graduation, I was promoted to E4.

There was a brief hiatus before the next phase of training began. I was assigned to work in the galley for approximately two weeks and then I was attached to the base maintenance unit. Each day, I would be given assignments and a crew of men to supervise who would assist in accomplishing the tasks. I was still performing very well.

When the next phase of training (Nuclear Power School) began, so did my problems. Just prior to the start of NPS, I began to experience an intense homesickness, something I never felt before.

During the first week or so of the program, we were evaluated based upon our test scores and assigned a certain number of mandatory study hours which were to be logged. Since the materials were classified as “Secret,” none of the materials could leave the building. Thus, we were required to study in a guarded classroom. This was a completely new learning paradigm to me. In college and even in “A” school, I would go to coffee shops or study in the barracks. I had difficulty adapting to this study regimen and poor grades followed. This resulted in the assignment of additional, mandatory in-class study hours that I was required to log.

During Nuclear Power School, we were also required to perform our normal military duties; such as serving in the galley, standing watch, etc. This, when added to my fear of what was going to happen if I didn’t get my grades up and my act together, and my homesickness, caused an overwhelming level of stress and anxiety and led me to seek help at the Family Service Center. I spoke with a civilian counselor and relayed to her all of my concerns, including thoughts of suicide. My intention was for her to provide me with some stress-reduction techniques, coping mechanisms, alternatives, possible rate or career changes within the Navy, etc. Instead, she asked me how I would kill myself and if I had a clear picture in my mind about it. What followed was the biggest mistake I have ever made in my life. I told her that if I were going to do it, I would use my next paycheck to buy a gun and then I would blow my head off.

Prior to making that statement, I failed to recognize the gravity of the situation; the fact that she was required by law to report it to the Navy; that it wasn’t merely a hypothetical question but rather, an attempt to see if I had thought the whole thing through or not. In retrospect, I should have mentioned immediately that I had no real intention of killing myself.

She contacted my section leader who summoned me to speak with him. He asked me if I had indeed had these thoughts and such, and I didn’t know what else to say but “Yes.” I didn’t have the presence of mind to say, “Yes, but, I don’t want that, I want help coping with the stress of school.”

Within a day or two, I had been dropped from Nuclear Power School. This caused me even more anxiety and despair. I was sent to the Transient Personnel Division (TPD) to await orders to the fleet pending a psychological evaluation and possible re-classification.

I was assigned to work in the Galley again. I performed my duties without complaint or comment from my superiors. The hours were undesirable (03:00-21:00). However, the work was not difficult or objectionable. After working there for about two weeks, I was assigned to the Photo Lab on base to work with Photographer’s Mates (PH). I worked with PH1 C_ D_, a PH2 female, whose name I do not recall, and several civilians. I had no photography experience at all; however, I successfully learned how to develop film, photographs, take quality pictures, and was sent out on assignments, both alone and with the PH2. I was enjoying my work and thought I might like being a PH myself.

I checked with NAVPERS and there were no openings for PH. There were openings for Operational Specialist (OS) and Intelligence Specialist (IS). However, since I had lost my security clearance as part of my disenrollment from NNPS, and since I was under observation with the Mental Health Center (MHC), I needed a waiver/clearance to apply for the OS/IS ratings.

I was not given the waiver that I needed because my MMPI scores were inconclusive. I began to feel that I was not receiving any cooperation from the MHC at all. When I look back, I think that they were most likely just doing their jobs. However, at the time, I felt that the situation was hopeless and I reasoned that if they wouldn’t let me re-class, then I would let the suicide ideation route just take its course. At this point, it seemed that my life in the Navy was over, so I reasoned that I would just get out and go back to college.

I was finally informed that I would be receiving a discharge. I wasn’t sure whether to be happy or embarrassed or disappointed etc. I felt like I had failed the military, my parents, my fiancee, and most importantly, myself. I really wanted to stay in, but I never had an opportunity to say it openly. On my final night in Orlando, several of my shipmates from the TPD barracks took me out drinking. The next day, I didn’t remember any of it. I was so sick that I was taken to the hospital to have my stomach pumped. Later that day, I was released.

The last few months of my Navy career has haunted me for many years now. I see many things that I did wrong in handling the situation with the civilian base counselor. In retrospect, I should not have mentioned anything about suicide, since that was not my ultimate intention. When I went to the counselor, I should have mentioned specifically that I wanted to stay in the Nuke Program and that I wanted some help coping with the issues I was dealing with.

In my relatively short time in the Navy, I did my job; which mostly consisted of going to school. My military bearing was tight. I had no complaints about my behavior prior to voluntarily seeking counseling. Essentially, I was a good sailor. Even after being expelled from NNPS, I served honorably by working hard in the Photo Lab. If asked, I am sure C_ D_ would have given me at least a very good evaluation based upon my performance and demeanor at the Photo Lab. However, no evaluation was given.

Since leaving the Navy, I have earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice (1997) from California State University, Fullerton and experienced success during my 12-year career in the Information Technology / Information Systems fields. I continually seek ways to improve myself as demonstrated by my 4.0 GPA at both MiraCosta College and Palomar College and my certificate in Supervision and Management. I also believe in giving back to the community through my volunteer work at Hospice of the Valleys in Sun City.

In closing, I humbly submit these facts, along with the supporting evidence in my service record, which shows that I was not suffering from a long-standing personality disorder. Even if I had been, my overall performance ratings (3.5 out of 4.0) should have been considered and my service characterized as “Honorable” based upon both my military and work experience; not the alleged medical condition.

I therefore respectfully request that the Character of Service entry be upgraded from “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” to “Honorable” on my military record to reflect the true Character of Service under which I served. I thank you most sincerely for your time and for the opportunity to present my case.”


Documentation

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

Character Reference ltr from A _ L. B_ _, dtd November 12, 2005 (2 pages)

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19900721 - 19910113       COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 1991011 4             Date of Discharge: 19911205

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 22
         Inactive: None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 21

Years Contracted: 4 ( 13 month extension )

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 98

Highest Rate: EM 3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 2 . 8 ( 1 )     Behavior: 3 . 2 ( 2 )        OTA: 3 . 20

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

---

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ Other physical/mental conditions - personality disorder, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910930:  Disenrolled from the Nuclear Power Training Program during the 1 ^st week of training for demonstrated unreliability. The Applicant was diagnosed having Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features by Naval Hospital, Naval Training Center, Orlando, FL.

911111 :  Medical evaluation by Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital. Orlando. FL.:
1. Subject Named Member (SNM) (Applicant) was originally interviewed in the Outpatient Mental Health Clinic on an emergency basis on 24 SEP 91 upon referral from Family Service Center for evaluation and treatment of “severe depression” and suicidal intent with plan to buy a gun with his next paycheck and shoot himself. He was subsequently dropped from NNPS. He has been followed in outpatient individual and group treatment since that time and was most recently interviewed today. Primary psychiatric diagnosis is: PERSONALITY DISORDER NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED WITH PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE AND DEPENDENT FEATURES as manifested by a chronic history of poor stress tolerance, unreliability, denial of responsibility, affective instability, excessive dependency on interpersonal relationships with significant others, anger mismanagement, passive resistance to reasonable demands placed upon him, authority conflicts, argumentativeness when asked to do something he does not want to do, and low self esteem. Throughout his treatment at the Mental Health Clinic he has continued to report strong motivation to be reunited with his parents and fiance, and attend college with his 81 bill. Two weeks prior to this date SNM (Applicant) asked his attending psychologist for a written waiver for US/IS school. Subsequent to being denied this request, he continued to voice suicidal threats if forced to fulfill his enlistment contract. There is a likelihood that he will harm himself if retained in the Naval service.
2. Attending psychologist advises:
The member is not considered mentally ill, but manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to render this individual incapable of serving adequately in the Navy. This member does not presently require, and will not benefit from, psychiatric hospitalization or psychiatric treatment. This member is judged to represent a continuing risk to self or others if retained in the naval service due to difficulty coping with routine stress of military life. This member is deemed fit for return to duty for immediate processing for Administrative Separations which should be initiated expeditious1~ in compliance with NAVMILPERSCOM instruction 1910.ID and NAVMILPERSCOM 3620225. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL LIKELY RESULT IN FURTHER PSYCHIATRIC MORBIDITY AND POSSIBLY MORTALITY AT NO BENEFIT TO THE NAVY.
                  N. H_, PH. D.
LT, MSC. USNR
Staff Psychologist

911122:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder.

911122 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elec ted not to consult with counsel , elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
         Applicant did not object to this separation.

911203:  Commanding Officer of Enlisted Personnel, Naval Training Center Staff , informed BUPERS , that the Applicant will be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ Enclosures (1) through (4) are forwarded herewith. EM3 G_ (Applicant) has been under psychiatric care since September 1991. He was diagnosed as having a Personality Disorder not otherwise specified with Passive-Aggressive Features. As evidenced by enclosure (3), he represents a continuing risk to self or others if retained in Naval service. Accordingly, EM3 G_ (Applicant)’s discharge is approved per reference (c) . ”

---

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19911205 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of under honorable conditions (general). 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 inequitable (B and C).

The Applicant claims he did his job, served honorably and was a good sailor in his relatively short time in the Navy. The Board noted the following inequity in the assignment of the Applicant’s character of service. The Applicant had no involvement with civil authories, and no military offenses on record during his enlistment. Having reviewed the complete service record, the Board considered the propriety and equity of the Applicant’s discharge. When a member is separated in accordance with reference (A), the character of service shall be honorable, unless general (under honorable conditions) is warranted by the service record. The Applicant’s service record contained no adverse entries. Therefore, the most appropriate characterization of service is honorable. Relief granted.

The Applicant states “I humbly submit these facts, along with the supporting evidence in my service record, which shows that I was not suffering from a long-standing personality disorder”. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority at Naval Hospital, Orlando, FL, and was recommended for expeditious administrative separation from the Navy. The diagnosis was made at the Mental Health Department on 19911111 after the Applicant was originally interviewed in the outpatient Mental Health Clinic on an emergency basis on 19910924 upon referral from Family Service Center for evaluation and treatment of “severe depression” and suicidal intent. After a complete review of the entire record, the Board found no evidence to support the A pplicant ’s claim. The Board found that the Applicant’s reason for discharge was appropriate. Thus, the Board finds that the Narrative Reason for Discharge reflects the Applicant’s mental health status at the time of his discharge, and was proper and equitable at the time of issuance. “Personality Disorder” is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant’s discharge. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant claims since leaving the Navy, he has earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice and has given back to the community through his volunteer work at a local hospice. The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. There is no law or regulation, which provided 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. The Applicant did not provide sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560 C ), effective 15 Aug 1991 until 04 Mar 1993, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

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

C. 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