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

 ex-DPSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00153 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000727.  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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My general under honorable conditions discharge from the United States Navy was based on behavioral problems and personality conflicts I was experiencing with my chain of command.  These behavioral problems and personality conflicts surfaced after my discharge in the form of schizophrenia.  Dr. N_ in DOCUMENT 2 states that "...one might wonder if his discharge from the Navy involved any such symptoms."  I was never referred for any psychological testing prior to my discharge.

2.  Surfacing psychological problems may have caused the drop in evaluations from 3.8 to 2.8 and made desertion seem like a legitimate answer to my problems.

3.  Since my discharge from the Navy, I've recieved counseling through Seven County services and went back to college.  I will graduate from the University of Louisville with a degree in psychology and a degree in Pan-African Studies in May 2000.  I plan to attend Southern Baptist Theological seminary in August of 2000 to pursue a degree in pastoral counseling for my master's.

Documentation

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

Psychiatric evaluation dated February 3, 1995 (2 copies)
Letter from licensed Clinical Psychologist dated December 13, 1994
Copy of Unofficial transcript from University of Louisville (2 copies)
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890303 - 890327	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890328		Date of Discharge:  930224

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  DPSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (4)	Behavior:  3.50 (4)		OTA:  3.65

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (2), KLM, NDSM, SASM with 2 Bronze Stars, BER, NUC, JMU

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  57 

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910203:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully utilized SN's telephone credit card number.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 25 days, reduction to DPSA.  Reduction suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920406:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 6Apr92.

920506:	Report of Declaration of Desertion.  Applicant declared deserter 5 May 92 having been an unauthorized absentee since 6 APR 92 from USS SAN DIEGO.

920603:	Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant surrendered to Transient Personnel Unit, Norfolk VA. 0730, 02 JUN 92 (57 days UA). 
	
920924:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specifications).
	Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 6Apr92 – 0730, 2Jun92, [57 days/surrendered.]
	Specification 2: Failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty at 1800, 2Sep92.
	Specification 3: Failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty at 0630, 3Sep92.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87.
	Specification: Miss movement through neglect on 22May92.
	Findings:  to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 60 days, reduction to DPSR.
	CA 921119: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

921112:	Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

The remaining portion of the applicant’s discharge package is missing from his service
record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930224 under Honorable conditions (General) 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant states, his discharge was based on behavioral problems and personality conflicts with his chain of command, and he was never referred for any psychological testing.  The Board agrees with the applicant’s issue.  However, the results of these behavioral problems and conflicts was desertion for 57 days and missing ship’s movement.  Both violations of the UCMJ were court martial offenses.  Additionally, when processing an individual for separation, and determining the reason for separation, misconduct takes precedence over a medical condition.  Psychological testing was not required.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant presents psychological problem was a possible cause for his desertion, which is irrelevant.  His reason for deserting does not mitigate the fact that he deserted.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board determined this is not a decisional issue.  It is commendable that the applicant has been able to recalibrate his life and get back on track to being a productive citizen.  Unfortunately, continued education alone is not enough to qualify for a discharge upgrade.  There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct, subsequent to leaving military service.  The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed.  This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general).  Those factors include but are not limited to the following:  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate).  However, accomplishing a single post-service factor is not justification to qualify a member for a discharge upgrade.  His service record, in addition to his post-service accomplishments are reviewed and then the determination to upgrade a discharge or not is made by the Board.   The applicant did not provide enough documentation to demonstrate good character and conduct.  The applicant is encouraged to continue to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments.  Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements.  The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article, 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days; Article 87, Missing ship’s movement, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE RM 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023