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

 ex-GMGSA, USNR
Docket No. ND97-01399

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 970918, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, and the reason for the discharge be changed to “Medical condition”.  The applicant requested a documentary discharge review and listed no representative on the DD-293.

Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 980928.  The NDRB determined that the discharge equitably reflects the quality of service rendered.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)

1.  My other than honorable discharge was inequitable because I was suffering from a medical problem that had been diagnosed by the Navy but was left untreated and I was expected to function as though I did not have any problem at all.

2.  The separation date on my current discharge is incorrect.  It should read 12b:  27 Aug 90 12h:  14 Aug 1990.

3.  TO:  NAVEL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

	Thc following issues were not taking into consideration at the time of my discharge. As my medical records will show I was suffering from mental illness at the time of my discharge. I knew the fleet doctor had recommended me for admin. Sep., But I never knew why.  As you will note in my medical records show the doctors noted even on my discharge exam that I had a personality disorder, schisotypical disorder, and passive aggresive.  For the first year after my discharge I was hospitalized 3 times for mental problems.  Finally in oct. 1991 I was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.  I was medicated accordingly.  With no insurance I was using a no charge mental health facility.  After leaving them with the aid of a state medical card I sought real professional help, there I was quickly diagnosed with schisoaffective disorder. This disorder is very close to the navy’s diagnosis.  I suffered 6 years in a hell you could not imagine nor would I wish you to just to get to where the navy knew I was, but never told me or helped me.  I feel that my deterorated state of mental health was never taken into consideration.  As the records show on 10-aug-90 the recommendation upon deteroration of members performance (mast, ect.) to admin sep.  That is verbatim from my medical records.  The things I did writing bad checks and being a.w.o.l. is all symptoms of my disorders.  They were tell tale signs I had a problem.  A very serious problem that almost took my life when I attempted suicide prior to my hospitalization.  You will note where I cut myself to get at a roomate.  Well 7 years later I still cut myself.  A behavior pattern that the counselers cant stop.  So you see what started in the Navy is still happening.  I will show my doctors my records so they can catch up.  So with the test of time passed I still suffer from the same problems.  I was booted out of the service with no reguard to my state of mental health. I was not told or warned nor was my problem ever addressed.  It was not considered at my Captains mast nor was it teated.  I was brushed off quickly.  I feel that this information in hand my discharge should be upgraded to Medical under honorable conditions.  I have suffered a great deal in 7 years from the neglegence of the military all I ask is that you right a wrong and make me able to say proudly that I served my country.  I gave my best shot at my service I cannot be punished for a disoreder I did not cause.  I have more than paid my debts for something I could not even control. I was not in a proper state of mental health nor was I in full and absolute controll of my action so how can you hold them against me.  It's like discharging someone who coughed when they	had the flu.  My actions were symptoms of a problem that was ignored.  I now live my life on social	security disability and support my wife and three children with it.  I am unable to work and make a living.  Had my condition been treated properly at the onset when the military doctors discovered it my life could very different today.  I know that you see thousands of these requests daily.  I hope you will see the mistake that was made and see I have legititmate right that was ignored at my discharge.  I did my best at what I did.  I did not have a dirty record prior to these events so the problem is very clear.  They say hindsight is 20/20 well now we have it and the truth.  Please consider my request with an open mind I feel you will make the right judgement.

							THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

							SINCERLY
					  			        (applicant)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active: 	None
	Inactive:	None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881004			Date of Discharge:  900527

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  07  24
	Inactive:  00  06  15

Age at Entry:  18				Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  70

NEC:  GMGSA-0000				Highest Rate:  GMGSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)		Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Nonjudicial Punishment(s):  1		Court(s)-Martial:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1

881004:	Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program at CRUITRACOM Great Lakes, IL.

890717:	Joined Fleet Training Center (FTC), Naval Station (NAVSTA) San Diego, CA.

891215:	Referred to medical by the FTC Drug and Alcohol Prevention Advisor for psychiatric evaluation.  “. . . SVM’s roommate revealed that SVM is devil worshiping and is inflicting wound on himself.  SVM admitted cutting his left arm with razor blade.  SVM denies devil worship.”

891218:	Naval Medical Clinic, NAVSTA San Diego, CA:  “. . . Only psych history entails seeing psychologist for several month because ‘upset’ re: girlfriends miscarriage.  Denies suicidal/homicidal ideation.  On no meds, denies drug abuse, drinks 3 beers [each] week.  No h/o auditory/vis halucinations. . . . Pt to F/U [with] MHC.”  

900324:	Joined USS WADDELL (DDG-24) in San Diego, CA.

900711:	USS WADDELL Medical Department:  Referred applicant to Mental Health Unit (MHU).  “21 yr old GMGSA with several week hx of being unable to remember basic work procedures.  At times he is unable to add simple math.  Advised junior corpsman that he was hearing voices.  Previous MHU visit on 18 DEC 89.  Ship will deploy for 6 months on 24 AUG 90.”

900723:	MHU, NAVSTA San Diego, CA:  Diagnosed with Axis I:  Occupational problem.  Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS with schizotypal, passive-aggressive features, EPTE.  “Recommendations:  1.  There is insufficient data to warrant a recommendation for admin separation on the basis of a personality disorder at this time.  If there is a deterioration of performance and page 13 warnings or NJPs occur then separation from the USN is recommended without recourse to further psychiatric intervention.  2.  Jacobson relaxation exercises.  3.  RTC prn.  4.  Pt advised of plan and agrees.”

900810:	COMDESRON 33 Medical Officer:  Evaluated applicant for substance abuse; noted prior MHU diagnosis and found no suicidal/homicidal ideations or evidence of a thought disorder.  “In light of prior eval member’s Dx c/w Axis II of Personality Disorder NOS.  FMHU recommend in case of deterioration of member’s (masts, etc) performance to Admin Sep.  No evidence of drug/alcohol dependence.
Axis I  Alcohol Abuse Sporadic
Hallucinogen abuse
Axis II Personality DO NOS [with] schizotypal and passive-aggressive features, EPTE.
P:  1.  Expeditiously admin separation IAW NAVMILPERSCOM 1910.1D and NAVOPINST 013/87 as per FMHU dated 23 Jul 90.
2. F/U at FMHU as needed.”

900814:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0730, 900803 until 0730, 900809 (6 days/Surrendered onboard USS WADDELL), and Article 134 (3 specs):  Dishonorably failing to pay debts of $270.00 on 3 July, $108.94 on 8 July, and $475.00 on 10 July 1990,
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and reduction to E-2.  There was no indication of an appeal in the record.

900815:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the  commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your NJP.  Receipt acknowledged.

900815:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen not to consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  Receipt acknowledged.

900817:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s verbatim comments:  GMGSA W_ has no potential for naval service.  He openly admitted the reason for his unauthorized absence was his overwhelming desire to be out of the United States Navy.  Recommend immediate discharge with a characterization of other than honorable.

900822:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

900527: 2	Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600.

RECORDER’S NOTES:

1  The source for all entries is the service record (includes medical/dental record) unless otherwise noted.

2  The DD Form 214, block 12.b (Separation Date This Period) should read “90 AUG 27” vice “90 MAY 7”.

 PART IV - EXTRACT OF PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8, effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91) Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT, states:

1.  Basis.  A member may be separated for misconduct when it is determined, under MILPERSMAN 3610200, that a member is unqualified for further military service by reason of one or more of the following circumstances:

a.  Minor disciplinary infractions.  A series of at least three but not more than eight minor violations (e.g. specifications) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ (none that could warrant a punitive discharge and not drug related) documented in the service record, within the current enlistment, which have been disciplined by not more than two (2) punishments under the UCMJ.  The member must have violated counseling (3630600.2) prior to initiating processing.  If the presented case exceeds these limits, including three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each, then process for pattern of misconduct or commission of a serious offense.  Process drug abuse cases in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3630620.  If separation of a member in entry level status is warranted solely by reason of minor violations of the UCMJ, and the member's misconduct does not meet the eligibility requirements for processing due to a pattern of misconduct, or commission of a serious offense, the processing should be under Entry Level Performance and Conduct (MILPERSMAN 3630200).

b.  A Pattern of Misconduct.

(1)  A pattern of misconduct is defined in part as discreditable involvement with civil and naval authorities as evidenced by one or more of the following:

(a)  Two or more minor civilian convictions within the current enlistment, the latest civilian conviction and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by Commander, Military Personnel Command (COMNAVMILPERSCOM), are exempt from this requirement).  Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(b)  Three or more punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by COMNAVMILPERSCOM , are exempt from this requirement).  Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(c)  Any combination of three minor civilian convictions misdemeanor(s) and or punishment(s) under the UCMJ within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by COMNAVMILPERSCOM, are exempt from this requirement).  Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(d)  Three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by COMNAVMILPERSCOM, are exempt from this requirement).  Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(e)  Nine or more violations (e.g., specifications) of the UCMJ within the current enlistment which have been disciplined by punishment under the UCMJ.  The latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command.  (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by COMNAVMILPERSCOM, are exempt from this requirement).  Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(2) A member may also be separated for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by:

(a)  A set pattern of failure to pay just debts.  (Include financial statement prepared as specified in MILPERSMAN 6210140.14 when case is forwarded.)

(b)  A set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to follow orders, decrees or judgments of a civil court concerning the support of dependents.  Include copies of court order(s), judgments, etc.

c.  Commission of a serious offense.  Commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if:

(1)  The specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation; and,

(2)  A punitive discharge would be authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for the same or a closely related offense.  Note that:

(a)  If basis for offense is evidenced by a court-martial conviction --the findings of which have been approved by the convening authority--the findings of the court-martial as they relate to the administrative discharge process (basis and reason) are binding on the administrative discharge board.  See Article 3610200.5a.

(b)  I basis for offense is evidence solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial convening authority has remitted  or suspended a punitive discharge, forward case to the same convening authority for endorsement according to MILPERSMAN 3610200.5b.

(d)  Civilian conviction

(1)  Conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, including similar adjudication in juvenile proceedings, when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and, (1) a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial, or (2) the sentence includes confinement for six months or more without regard to suspension or probation.  In all cases, advise whether the member has appealed the conviction or not and, if not, the time limit within which member has to file a appeal.  In addition, if the member has appealed, advise of its outcome or anticipated decision date. 

(2)  Separation processing may be initiated whether or not a member has filed an appeal of a civilian conviction or has stated an intention to do so.  However, execution of an approved separation shall be withheld pending outcome of the appeal or until the time for appeal has passed, unless the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, or the member has requested separation and such a requests have been approved by the Secretary of the Navy, who may direct that the member be separated before final action in the appeal.

(3)  Misconduct due to civilian conviction.  If member is convicted of a felony which includes a sentence to confinement for more than 1 year (whether suspended or not), or an offense involving sexual perversion, processing is mandatory.

2.  Counseling and rehabilitation

a.  Separation processing for a series of minor disciplinary infractions or a pattern of misconduct may not be initiated until the member has been counseled by his or her parent command concerning deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records.  Only one counseling entry during the current enlistment by the parent command is required.  Such efforts shall include the following and be documented in the member's service record by Page 13 entry (see NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1910.1).

(1)  Written notification concerning deficiencies or impairments.

(2)  Specific recommendations for corrective action indicating any assistance available.

(3)  Comprehensive explanation of the consequences of failure to under take successfully the recommended corrective action.

(4)  Reasonable opportunity for the member to undertake the recommended corrective action.

b.  Counseling and rehabilitation are not required if the reason for misconduct separation is commission of a serious offense, civilian felony conviction or a similar juvenile adjudication.

3.  Characterization or Description.  Normally under Other Than Honorable Conditions, but characterization as General may be assigned when warranted.  For respondents who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as Honorable is not authorized unless the respondent's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate and the separation is approved by Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command, or higher authority.  When characterization of service under Other Than Honorable Conditions is not warranted for a member in entry level status, the separation shall be described as Entry Level Separation.

4. Reduction in rate.  When a service member serving in paygrade E-4 or above is administratively separated with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service, the member shall be administratively reduced to paygrade E-3, such reduction to become effective upon separation.

5.  Procedures

a.  The Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used; however, use of the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) is authorized for use when processing members for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions or if characterization of service under Other Than Honorable Conditions is not warranted as described in MILPERSMAN 3610300.3c.

b.  When a member is processed for separation for a commission of a serious offense or civilian conviction, the Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used.

c.  Request that the member execute a signed statement of awareness and request for or waiver of rights after his or her receipt of the Notice of Administrative Board Procedure Proposed Action.  Use the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) in the case of members processed for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, or misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct wherein a general discharge is deemed appropriate.

d.  Forward the processed case by letter of transmittal [or message] to Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (NMPC-83).  Ensure member's full name, rate and SSN have been indicated on each page of the case.  Refer to NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1910.1 for message submission option.

Note that if basis for offense is evidenced solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial convening authority has remitted or suspended a punitive discharge, forward case to the same convening authority for endorsement in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3610200.5.

e.  Misconduct involving homosexuality shall be processed in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3630400.  Misconduct involving a fraudulent entry shall be processed in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3630100.  Misconduct involving drug abuse shall be processed in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3630620.

f.  A member who is absent without authority may be processed under this article without returning to military control in the following circumstances:

(1) Absent without authority after receiving notice of initiation of separation processing.

(2) When prosecution of the member appears to be barred by the Statute of Limitations, Article 43 UCMJ, and the statute has not been tolled by any of the conditions set out in Article 43(d).

(3) When the member is an alien and appears to have gone to a foreign country where the United States has no authority to apprehend the member under treaty or other agreement.

g.  A member of a reserve component who is on active duty and is within two years of becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military retirement system, may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he or she becomes eligible for that pay, unless his or her release is approved by the Secretary of the Navy.

h.  In such cases as described in subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 4f, the Notice required in either MILPERSMAN 3640200 or 3640300 shall:

(1) Specify date (not less than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice) in order to give the member the opportunity to return to military control and, if the member does not return to military control by such a date, that the separation process shall continue.

(2) Be sent to the member by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested (or by an equivalent form of notice if such service by U.S. Mail is not available for delivery at an address outside of the United States) to the member's last known address or the next of kin.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 127:  Issuing worthless checks, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:

“9.2 Propriety of the Discharge

a.  A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that: 

(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or

(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.

b.  When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.

c.  The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis.  Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.

d.  The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971:  the NDRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.

9.3 Equity of the Discharge

A discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless:

a.  In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ in material respects from policies and procedures currently applicable on a service-wide basis to discharges of the type under consideration, provided that:

(1) Current policies or procedures represent a substantial enhancement of the rights afforded a respondent in such proceedings; and

(2) There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge, if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time of the discharge proceedings under consideration.

b.  At the time of issuance, the discharge was inconsistent with standards of discipline in the military service of which the applicant was a member.

c.  In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

(1) Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

(a) service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);

(b) awards and decorations;

(c) letters of commendation or reprimand;

(d) combat service;

(e) wounds received in action;

(f) records of promotions and demotions;

(g) level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

(h) other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognitions through an award or commendation;

(i) length of service during the service period that is the subject of the discharge review;

(j) prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;

(k) convictions by court-martial;

(l) records of nonjudicial punishment;

(m) convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;

(n) records of periods of unauthorized absence;

(o) records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

(2) Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

(a) Total capabilities.  This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores.  Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.

(b) Family and personal problems.  This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.

(c) Arbitrary or capricious actions.  This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.

(d) Discrimination.  This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence."

D.  The SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, paragraph 9.3, Equity of the Discharge, states, in part, that a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless in the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

1.  Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);

b.  awards and decorations;

c.  letters of commendation or reprimand;

d.  combat service;

e.  wounds received in action;

f.  records of promotions and demotions;

g.  level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

h.  other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognitions through an award or commendation;

i.  length of service during the service period that is the subject of the discharge review;

j.  prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;

k.  convictions by court-martial;

l.  records of nonjudicial punishment;

m.  convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;

n.  records of periods of unauthorized absence;

o.  records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

2.  Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  Total capabilities.  This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores.  Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.

b.  Family and personal problems.  This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.

c.  Arbitrary or capricious actions.  This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.

d.  Discrimination.  This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence.

E.  The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:

“2.5 Authority for Review of Naval Discharges; Jurisdictional Limitations

a.	The Board shall have no authority to:

(1)	review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial;

(2) alter the judgement of a court-martial, except that the discharge or dismissal awarded may be changed for purposes of clemency;

(3)	revoke any discharge or dismissal;

(4) reinstate a person in the Naval Service;

(5) recall a former member to active duty;

(6) change a reenlistment code;

(7) make recommendations for reenlistment to permit entry in the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces;

(8) cancel or void enlistment contracts; or

(9) change the reason for discharge from or to a physical disability.

b.  Review of naval discharge shall not be undertaken in instances where the elapsed time between the date of discharge and the date of receipt of application for review exceeds fifteen years.”

PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION

Discussion

	After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents1, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the characterization of the applicant’s service is equitable.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN,  Article 3630600.

	The applicant was discharged on 9005271 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and B, Part IV).  On 900723, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with schizotypal, passive-aggressive features, existed prior to entry on active duty, and recommended for administrative separation (ADSEP) if his personality disorder should cause a deterioration of performance and Page 13 Warnings or NJPs.  On 900814, he had NJP for six days of UA and three specifications of issuing worthless checks.  On 900815, he was informed of his commanding officer’s (CO’s) intention to recommend him for ADSEP under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his issuing worthless checks.  The applicant chose not to consult with legal counsel prior to electing to obtain copies of the documentation being forwarded to the discharge authority in support of his ADSEP.  On 900817, the applicant’s CO recommended him for ADSEP under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  On 900822, BUPERS directed the applicant’s discharge UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The Board found the applicant’s discharge to be both proper and equitable (C and D, Part IV).

	In the applicant’s issue 1, he writes, “1.  My other than honorable discharge was inequitable because I was suffering from a medical problem that had been diagnosed by the Navy but was left untreated and I was expected to function as though I did not have any problem at all.”  The Board noted the applicant’s diagnosis of a personality disorder on 900723, and points out that it was not considered sufficient to warrant separation unless the diagnosed medical condition adversely affected the applicant’s performance and conduct on active duty.  The Board finds no correlation between being UA and issuing worthless checks and a personality disorder.  Furthermore, the Board is not allowed to change the reason for the applicant’s discharge to or from a physical condition (E, Part IV).

In the applicant’s issue 2, he writes, “The separation date on my current discharge is incorrect.  It should read 12b:  27 Aug 90 12h:  14 Aug 1990.”  The Board concurs; however, this is not an issue that merits any relief.

	In the applicant’s letter to the Board, he writes, “. . . I feel that my deterorated state of mental health was never taken into consideration.  As the records show on 10-aug-90 the recommendation upon deteroration of members performance (mast, ect.) to admin sep. . . . The things I did writing bad checks and being a.w.o.l. is all symptoms of my disorders. . . . So you see what started in the Navy is still happening.  I will show my doctors my records so they can catch up.  So with the test of time passed I still suffer from the same problems.  I was booted out of the service with no reguard to my state of mental health. I was not told or warned nor was my problem ever addressed.  It was not considered at my Captains mast nor was it teated.  I was brushed off quickly.  I feel that this information in hand my discharge should be upgraded to Medical under honorable conditions.”  As previously mentioned in issue 1, the Board does not agree with the applicant’s interpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  The Board found nothing here upon which to base any relief.

	Finally, the applicant goes on to write, “. . . I now live my life on social security disability and support my wife and three children with it.  I am unable to work and make a living.  Had my condition been treated properly at the onset when the military doctors discovered it my life could very different today.”  The Board interprets this to be a request for post-service clemency.  The Board recognizes that while the applicant cannot undo his past mistakes, he can contribute in a positive and significant way to society (D, Part IV).  Contributions looked upon favorably by this Board include educational pursuits, employment track record, being a contributing member of society and making a positive impact in the community through volunteer work.  The applicant must prove that his post-service conduct has been above reproach and he is making a valid attempt at making amends for the misconduct he committed during the period of naval service under review.  The 15 year window during which applicants may appeal their discharges was established to allow time for establishing themselves and making these substantial, documented life style changes and community contributions which could offset and make amends for the misconduct of record.  The applicant has submitted insufficient supporting documentation that would warrant clemency. 

Recorder’s NoteS:

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

Catholic Social Services, Hamilton, Ohio letter dtd 970805
Extracts from Service Record (13 pages)
Extracts from Medical Record (19 pages)
Copy of applicant’s DD Form 214.

PART VI - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

Decision

The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues that you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional documents 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809.

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Building 36 Washington Navy Yard
		901 M Street, SE
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023.