Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600377
Original file (ND0600377.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00377

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060110 . 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 20061103 . After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, an d 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) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder .
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read: “03 08 14.” The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
“I HAD BEEN DISHARGED WITH AN INJURY. NOT A DISORDER. I AM TRYING TO GET BACK IN THE SERVICE, BUT I HAVE THE WRONG DISCHARGE CODE. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING FOR IT TO BE CHANGED. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Psychiatric Emergency Services Note dtd February 15, 2005 (3 pages)
Report from Puget Sound HCS dtd March 10, 2005 (2 pages)
 Evaluation Report and Counseling for period ending June 15, 2000 (2 pages)
Letter from Applicant dtd February 15, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19970121 - 19970902       COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19970903              Date of Discharge: 20010516

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 03 08 14
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 19

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                          AFQT: 32

Highest Rate: OS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )     Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.58

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Coast Guard Unit Commendation w/ Distinguishing Device, Good Conduct Medal


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 :

990520:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Comply with Navy policy on dependent care responsibilities during duty hours, exercises, unaccompanied tours, TAD, extended duty hours, PCS and similar military obligations.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
990521:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government – parenthood.
990521 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel elected to submit a statement and obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

990604:  Applicant’s statement regarding dependent care.

 990629:  Commanding Officer, USS FIFE, recommended that the Applicant be retained but that the Applicant’s wife be separated by reason of parenthood. Commanding Officer’s comments: “OSSN B_ [Applicant] is a valuable member of this command the the Navy. As per their desires , it is my recommendation that [Applicant] be retained in the Navy and his spouse OSSA A_ B_ be discharged under references (a) and (b). ”

990727:  CNPC directed that the Applicant’s wife be discharged by reason of parenthood, but that the Applicant be retained.

010516:  Evaluation Report and Counseling:
         Professional Knowledge : 3.0
         Quality of Work: 3.0
         Equal Opportunity : 1.0
         Military Bearing/Character: 1.0
         Personal Job Accomplishment: 3.0
         Teamwork: 3.0
         Leadership: 2.0
         OTA: 2.29
         Comments: “Evaluation submitted upon Petty Officer B_’s administrative separation from the U.S. Navy.
          Petty Officer B _ is not being recommended for retention due to inconsistent performance. His outside influences have prevented him from achieving the most average standards as a member of the U.S. Navy. He has been unable to perform his duties as an Operations Specialist due to his security clearance being withdrawn.

         35/36 – Petty Officer B_’s undisciplined persona and conduct have kept him from becoming a complete Sailor. The ideals and actions he has displayed have been detrimental to his overall performance.”
010516:  DD214: Applicant discharged with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of personality disorder, authority MILPERSMAN 1910-122. Separation Code: GFX (Personality Disorder with Administrative Board).

Service Record did not contain the Ad ministrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20010516 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 available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the disch arge was proper and equitable (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the cond uct of governmental affairs (D).
The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board invoked the presumption of regularity. Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant met the criteria for discharge by reason of personality disorder, was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively process the Applicant for separation, that the Applicant was afforded all rights which he elected at notification and that the Applicant’s discharge was directed by proper authority.

The Applicant implies that his discharge is improper because he was not separated by reason of personality disorder, but discharged “for an injury.” The Board found that the documentation submitted by the Applicant was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity. Regarding the Applicant’s reason for separation, t he Applicant’s statements and documentation did not demonstrate that the Applicant was not properly diagnosed by competent medical authority with a personality disorder at the time of his discharge. Regarding the Applicant’s character of service , the Applicant’s conduct and proficiency markings, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, fall below that required for an honorable characterization of service. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment, enlistment or educational opportunities. An upgrade to honorable or a change in narrative reason would be inappropriate. Relief is not warranted.

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. 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), 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 5420.174D 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.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501198

    Original file (ND0501198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the narrative reason for separation be changed to “convenience of gov’t or proper narrative”. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter to the Applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated November 23, 2004 Applicant’s DD Form 149 Psychological...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501077

    Original file (ND0501077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “medical.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. “Propriety or Equity Issue(s): The applicant presents maintains that he is a changed man of honorable character and high moral standing.Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600363

    Original file (ND0600363.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050325 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). For discharges based on personality disorder, the discharge should be honorable unless...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00493

    Original file (ND02-00493.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 28 on DD 214 reflects separation due to "Personality Disorder." I don't or never have had a personality disorder. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970331 - 970822 ELS USNR (DEP) 990521 - 990607 COG Period of Service Under Review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00527

    Original file (ND02-00527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 990906 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 naval service. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective 20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501527

    Original file (ND0501527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation at the time of discharge be changed. Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 18 days Confinement: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 56 Highest Rate: HA Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: NA* Behavior: NA* OTA: NA* Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00651

    Original file (ND03-00651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00651 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030304. My pre-service civilian conviction, properly listed on my enlistment documents, was also used in the discharge proceedings.I am requesting reinstatement and an upgrade of my discharge for the following reasons:• Misdiagnosed as having a personality disorder. DSM IV Diagnosis: Axis I: 296.24, Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe with Psychotic Features, EPTE Axis II: 301.6, Dependent...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600262

    Original file (ND0600262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. He was diagnosed as having a severe personality disorder. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00535

    Original file (ND02-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The received general discharge is improper and inequitable because the applicant's service record reflects her honorable service in the U.S. Navy. 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...