ex-AN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:     
        

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20020524 - 20021008     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20021009    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050304     Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 26 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.0 (2)     Behavior: 2.0 (2)       OTA: 2.56

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     JMUA AFOUA (w/Valor)

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling:

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):        20070621
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:   ND06-01016
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.


Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
         DD 214:           Service/Medical Record:           Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education/Training:     
         Health/Medical Records:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                 Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation:           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        








Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, Article 1910-122, 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant seeks to improve his employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends his personality disorder diagnosis is incorrect.
3.       The Applicant contends his obstructive sleep apnea and deviated septum led to his poor performance and misconduct.
4.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20141119            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Based on the Applicant’s diagnosis of a personality disorder, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review, but waived his right to submit a written statement.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to improve his employment opportunities. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his personality disorder diagnosis is incorrect. The Applicant submitted a post-service letter from an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry dated 16 November 2005 which concluded that the Applicant did not find that he met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder. Additionally, the Applicant submitted a letter from a Psychiatry Resident dated 17 May 2006 which stated, “We did not find any evidence for a Cluster B personality disorder.” The Applicant also submitted a report from a Licensed Psychologist dated 15 May 2012 which reported “While definitive conclusions about past treatment and diagnoses cannot be made at this time,… it may be that at the time he was diagnosed with BPD he was in acute distress from depression and appeared emotionally unstable, which may have briefly looked like BPD but was resolved once his depression was resolved.” Although the Applicant was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder while in service, he was also diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned that the Applicant’s separation was proper and warranted at the time of discharge. However, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s separation would have been more appropriate to have been separated based on his Adjustment Disorder. Since the Applicant was only notified of separating proceedings for Personality Disorder, the NDRB voted to change the Applicant’s narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.

Characterization of service: A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. The Commanding Officer, Electronic Attack Squadron 134 letter dated 10 March 2005 describes that the Applicant exhibited a pattern of misconduct. The Commanding Officer letter is consistent with the Applicant’s Evaluation Report dated 04 March 2005 which stated, “He has been disrespectful to his chain of command and unwilling to perform as a team. His lack of professionalism has negatively impacted his peers and good order and discipline of the command.” This same Evaluation Report marked the Applicant “Below Standards” in blocks 35, 36, and 38. The Applicant’s own statements also indicate he was UA on at least one occasion, had issues with tool accountability when working on or near aircraft, and had disagreements with his supervisors. Based on the Applicant’s overall record, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects. Therefore, NDRB discerned that the Applicant’s separation was warranted and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization was appropriate. Partial relief granted.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his obstructive sleep apnea and deviated septum led to his poor performance and misconduct. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. However, the NDRB does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s poor performance or misconduct. Relief denied.

4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The NDRB considers outstanding post-service conduct 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. The Applicant provided a history of his post-service conduct. However, post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not warrant relief. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and the Applicant’s service record. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was warranted and equitable; however, the narrative reason was not accurate. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY. The Applicant is no longer eligible for additional reviews or hearings by the NDRB. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review.

Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB 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