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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00768

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990512, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000317.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “3630605” vice “3630600”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member opines that early manifestations of his subsequently diagnosed psychosis impaired his ability to serve and sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant upgrade of his character of service to honorable.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Psychiatric evaluation dated March 2, 1999
Copy of Letter of Appreciation dated April 30, 1996
Copy of Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for 95Jun16 to 96Jan15, 96Jan16 to 96Jul15, and 96Jul16 to 97Jan15
Psychological Evaluation dated February 28, 1997
Copy of awards page

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950418 - 950425	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950426		Date of Discharge:  971104

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  Unknown

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.66 (3)	Behavior:  2.66 (3)		OTA:  2.77	5.0 evals

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, NER, SSDR, AFEM, NDSM, Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970225:	NAS Miramar BMC:  Impression: Occupational difficulties. (2) R/O ADD vs impaired aptitude.  Plan Consult psychology NMCSD.

970228:	Psychological evaluation:  Diagnosis:  No formal diagnosis.

970307:	NJP.  No further information found in service record.

970905:	NJP.  No further information found in service record.

971028:	COMCRUDESGRU THREE directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Discharge package missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971104 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In response to applicant’s issue 1 (EQUITY ISSUE), to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review.  There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge.  There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.  Since much of the applicant’s discharge package could not be located by either the applicant’s former command or by the applicant, the Board must assume regularity in government affairs.
Relief denied at this time.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  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.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, DC 20374-5023