ex-CSSN, 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)       20020917 - 20030210     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20030211    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20041223     Highest Rank/Rate: CSSN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 13 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 2.0 (1)     Behavior: 2.0 (1)       OTA: 2.67

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

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


Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “PERSONALITY DISORDER”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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:        

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

         Expert:           Character:      

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 contends his conduct while in-service was Honorable and his mental health problems should not have resulted in a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.
2.       The Applicant contends he was told verbally by his chain of command that he would receive an Honorable discharge.
3.       The Applicant contends that his command was negligent in not recommending he seek legal counsel during the separation process.
4.       The Applicant contends his discharge should be reviewed in accordance with Secretary of Defense instructions of 3 September 2014.
5.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade of his discharge.

Decision

Date: 20150806            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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included his mental health diagnosis from proper medical authority of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and avoidant personality disorder (PD) with dependent, immature, and oppositional features. The Applicant was admitted to Navy Hospital Mental Health Unit for suicide attempt/gesture after he attempted to overdose on prescribed medication. During psychiatric evaluation, the Applicant revealed a pre-service history of ADHD and psychiatric counseling that was not disclosed to the Navy during his enlistment processing. Based on the Applicant’s mental health problems and recommendation by medical authorities, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived right to consult with a qualified counsel, but exercised his right to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority. The Applicant was not entitled to request an administrative board.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim that a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS impacted his discharge, and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with special training on mental health disorder. The Applicant’s service record documents the Applicant was diagnosed with a mental health disorder while serving in the armed forces.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his conduct while in-service was Honorable and his mental health problems should not have resulted in a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The Applicant’s record shows that he was counseled by his command on many occasions for behavior problems, and poor performance. The Applicant was counseled for frequent tardiness to work, sleeping while at work, poor hygiene on duty, below standard performance requiring constant supervision in order to complete the simplest of tasks, poor work ethics, and below standard military bearing and uniform appearance. During psychiatric counseling, the Applicant revealed his history prior to entry into the Navy for treatment of ADHD, and counseling for anger problems at home. The Applicant also admitted to heavy marijuana and alcohol abuse while in high school that he denied during the enlistment process, and on his security clearance questionnaire. The Applicant’s omissions and deceptions while making false official statements during the enlistment process constitute a likely fraudulent enlistment and could have resulted in more harsh administrative or punitive actions by his command. After a review of the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the discharge characterization of service of General was warranted by the Applicant’s performance, and conduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was told verbally by his chain of command that he would receive an Honorable discharge. The Applicant states that his “Chief” told him he would receive an Honorable discharge. In the Navy, the authority to assign characterization of service for administrative separation resides with the Separation Authority, a Navy officer with general court-martial authority. 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. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was ever recommended for anything other than a General discharge. Even if the Applicant’s contention is true, it does not change the fact that the Separation Authority retains authority for service characterization. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his command was negligent in not recommending he seek legal counsel during the separation process. The Applicant’s record shows that on 2 December 2004 the Applicant was advised of his rights in the administrative separation process, and that he specifically waived his right to consult with qualified counsel. Had the Applicant elected to consult with qualified counsel at the time of his notification of administrative separation, counsel would have been provided free of charge by the government, or he could have elected to retain civilian counsel at his own expense. Other than notifying the Applicant of his rights, there is no requirement for the government to recommend decisions that may, or may not, be beneficial to either party. Therefore, the NDRB determined that the government acted properly in notifying the Applicant of his rights. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge should be reviewed in accordance with Secretary of Defense instructions of 3 September 2014. The Applicant refers to instructions published by the Secretary of Defense to the Service Chiefs for service members who may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but have been diagnosed with a personality disorder by medical authorities. There is no evidence in the Applicant’s record, nor has the Applicant made any statements that he suffered from PTSD. By the Applicant’s own admission, he suffered from a mental health condition that was diagnosed by a qualified Staff Psychologist as avoidance personality disorder. The Psychologist made no diagnosis of PTSD, nor has the Applicant made any claims that he was misdiagnosed, and the NDRB found no evidence in the Applicant’s record of service, or in his post-service documentation, of any substantiated evidence of PTSD. Therefore, the NDRB determined the Secretary of Defense instructions do not apply to the Applicant’s case, and this issue is without merit. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 personal statement, and evidence of his Associate degree with Phi Theta Kappa. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , knowing that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service conduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service conduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the Applicant’s length of service, and his performance and conduct as documented in his 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 Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PERSONALITY DISORDER.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. 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 , or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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