Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600271
Original file (ND0600271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-EM3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00271

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051122 . 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.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061005 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, impropriety in the Applicant ’s discharge was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the characterization of service shall remain the same but that the narrative reason for discharge shall be changed. The discharge shall read : GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-164, Separation Code “JFF. ”


PART I -

APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant ’s issues, as stated on the application:
“ I can not receive the Montgomery Ward GI Bill due to the fact that my final discharge was general (under honorable conditions) due to a personality disorder. Upon discovery, I was not given the choice to stay in the Navy. Furthermore this was my second discharge, my first being on 09Jun2001 when I Star reenlisted, there fore my first discharge was an Honorable (I did not recieve a DD 214 for this discharge) discharge and that was the enlistment that I opted for GI Bill and Navy College Fund, both of which I cannot recieve at this time due to second discharge. ”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant , was considered:
Applicant ’s DD Form 214
 Copy of reenlistment contract, dtd June 10, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19980724 – 19981227      COG
          Active: USN      19981228 - 20010609       HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010610              Date of Discharge: 20021220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 1 0 6 11
          Inactive: None
Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 21

Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 91

Highest Rate: EM 2(SS)

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 .0 ( 1 )                        Behavior: 2 .0 ( 1 )                  OTA: 2 . 86

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy “E” Ribbon , National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon , Enlisted Submarine Warfare Insignia


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010610 :  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.
020106 : *          Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Support Command, informed Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-83) of Applicant ’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments : “EM3 M_( Applicant ) is being processed for convenience of the government - personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 5 February 2002, EM3 M_( Applicant ) was found guilty at NJP for failure to obey order or regulation. EM3 M_( Applicant ) was sent for a mental health evaluation at the Branch Medical Clinic Makalapa. This evaluation determined that EM3 M_( Applicant ) was a risk to himself and others if retained in the naval service. Upon reviewing information provided in enclosure (4), I determined that EM3 M_( Applicant ) did not have potential for continued naval service and that he should be discharged from the U.S. Navy. ” [Dated in error. It is presumed that the date should have been 030106.]

020205 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation (dereliction in the performance of duties.)
         Specification: In that EM2(SS) K_ M_( Applicant ) who knew or should have known of his duties onboard USS CHARLOTTE (SSN 766), on or about 14 January 2002, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to complete all steps of the procedure for operating the Starboard Electrolytic Chlorine Generator, causing significant damage, as it was his duty to do.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 859 per month for 2 month s , restriction for 6 0 days (suspended 6 months) , reduction to E- 4 . No indication of appeal in the record.
021122:  Medical evaluation at Mental Health Department, Naval Medical Clinic, Pearl Harbor, HI: Impression: The patient is a 22 year old Sailor with two years of USN service with a significant history of not complying or adhering to rules and regulations as demonstrated by his two Captain’s Masts, one XOI, and numerous counseling chits. He also has a pervasive problem in his social relationships and he was recently hospitalized for five days after endorsing and verbalizing plan for suicide.
          Diagnoses: Axis I: Occupational Problem, moderate to severe
                  Axis II: Borderline Personality Disorder, moderate
                  Axis III: None
                  Axis IV: Demands of routine military service
                  Axis V. Current GAF=59
         Recommendations: 1. This member is not currently suicidal or homicidal and agrees to seek help should he become so via this clinic, his command, and/or Tripler AMC. 2. This member is not considered mentally ill but manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior, which is of such severity as to render the individual incapable of serving adequately in the Navy. The member does not presently require and will not benefit from hospitalization or psychiatric treatment. The member is not presently considered suicidal or homicidal. The member is deemed fit for return to duty for routine processing for an administrative separation, which should be initiated by his command in compliance with MILPERSMAN 1910-120.    

021209 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general by reason of personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

021209 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights .

0 21211 :  Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Support Command, directed the Applicant 's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of personality disorder.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20021220 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general ( under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was not proper ( B and C ).

The MILPERSMAN directs that when processing is initiated, an Applicant will be processed for all applicable bases. Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder on 20021122, and his command made the decision to process him for administrative separation. The Applicant was dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and convenience of the government on the basis of personality disorder per the applicable regulations. Discharge on the basis of misconduct would have been proper; however, the Applicant was discharged for personality disorder rather than misconduct. While the Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder, that diagnosis did not qualify the Applicant for discharge by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a personality disorder. The mere presence of a personality disorder is not a bar to Naval 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 MILPERSMAN, Article 3620200 is completed. Counseling is not required 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 those 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). While competent medical authority determined that Applicant’s condition rendered him incapable of serving adequately, the Applicant was not issued a counseling warning. The Applicant’s condition was not evaluated as being self-destructive and/or danger to self of other such that a processing could be initiated without counseling. The Applicant did not qualify for separation by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of personality disorder because his record did not meet the criteria for discharge. While discharging the Applicant was proper, the basis used for the Applicant’s discharge was not proper. Because section 501 of SECNAVINST 5420.17D provides that an applicant may not receive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation, the Board may not change the Applicant’s discharge to misconduct. Therefore, the reason for discharge shall be changed to Secretarial Authority. Relief granted.

The Applicant requested an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by one nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violating Article 92 (willful dereliction of duty) of the UCMJ. Violations of Article 92 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized at courts martial. 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. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant stated that he wanted an upgrade in order to use educational benefits. 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.
.
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 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 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01156

    Original file (ND99-01156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.980209: Mental Health Dept, Naval Ambulatory Care Center, Groton, CT: CHIEF COMPLAINT: Pt reported to his command in January 198 that he was having suicidal thoughts and he was transferred TAD to Group 2 for further assessment. Recommendation made at that time that he continue aboard the USS OKLAHOMA CITY and further recommended that pt seek further mental health eval should his anxiety continue after the boat transferred to Norfolk. Additionally,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00151

    Original file (ND04-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion): _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.Review of the service record reflects that this former member maintained...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600162

    Original file (ND0600162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petty Officer M_(Applicant) was separated locally for personality disorder, pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The Applicant implies that his discharge was improper due to contradicting statements from his command and because he was not “given the right to take matters further up Chain of Command.” In the Applicant’s remarks from DD Form 293, the Applicant implies that he was denied his “rights to see the admiral.” The Applicant also states that he was not given...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600726

    Original file (ND0600726.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-PNSN, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00400

    Original file (ND02-00400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00400 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010430 under honorable conditions (general) 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00911

    Original file (ND02-00911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00911 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020612, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The absence of these specific records and the, young man's lack of knowledge of this type evaluation has to raise questions of due process. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010806 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501370

    Original file (ND0501370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGE CHARACTERIZATION EMFN M_(applicant) was discharged on June 17, 1999 with a General Discharge based on Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) section 1910-142, Misconduct, Commission Serious Offense.A review of MILPERSMAN 1910-142 indicates that a member may be separated based commission of a serious military or civilian offense only when: AXIS V: 80 Recommendation: (1) Patient is fit for duty, however recommend no deployment at present. PART III –...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801127

    Original file (ND0801127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501476

    Original file (ND0501476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant was discharged on 20010911 with a DD Form 214 that listed the separation authority as MILPERSMAN 1910-102 and the narrative reason for separation as personality disorder. On 20010926, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501109

    Original file (ND0501109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief granted.Under applicable regulations, separations based on a personality disorder should be honorable unless a general (under honorable conditions) or an entry-level separation is warranted. The NDRB has no authority to provide any additional relief in the Applicant’s case. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further...