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

 ex-AK3, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00194 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant designated the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000803.  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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Unsatisfactory Performance - failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily , authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630300.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 2, Department, Component and Branch, should read:  “NAVY - USNR” vice “NAVY - USN”.  Block 24, Character of Service should read:  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” vice “OTHER THAN HONORABLE.”  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (EQUITY ISSUE)  This former member opines that an inservice disability, Guillain-Barre syndrome, impaired his ability to serve and sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant separation under honorable conditions.

2.  (EQUITY ISSUE)  This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

Documentation

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

Applicant's request dtd 29 Jun 88 for discharge in lieu of Special Court-Martial
Applicant's Medical Record Report dtd 23 Mar 1988 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR		800729 - 830921	HON
	Inactive: USNR		NONE

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  830922		Date of Discharge:  880708

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  09  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4 (20 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  AK3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.33 (9)	Behavior:  3.42 (9)		OTA:  3.22

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NEM, GCM, BER, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  5 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Unsatisfactory Performance - failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630300.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD.]

Applicant’s signed request for Discharge, in lieu of court martial is provided.  The Board assumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs.
880323:	Medical Eval, Capt M_ S. D_, MC:  28 year old right handed Black active duty navy man, who was previously healthy, who complains of the acute onset of four extremity weakness occurring over the last three days.  Two days prior to admission, the pt awoke complaining of numbness is his left arm and increasing difficulty with his grip strength.  His problems of weakness and numbness progressed to include his left leg with increasing difficulty walking and complained of a limp.  Pt was seen at Oak Know and scheduled for follow up in three days; however, the day after being see at Oak Knoll, his weakness progressed to the point where he was markedly weak in all four extremities and no longer able to walk or stand without assistance.  Pt denied any diplopia, dysphagia, shortness of breath, palpitations or lightheadedness.  Pt was evaluated by NCV at Oak Knoll showing normal latencies in NCV but possibly decreased F waves present in only one of ten responses.  He was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome and transferred to letterman Army Medical Center for further treatment with plasmapheresis.
	Pt underwent nerve conduction velocities which were consistent with Guillain-Barre with absent F waves and borderline amplitudes with distally abnormal EMG.  A LP was performed which found 0 RBC, 6 WBC of which 60% were lymphs and 40% were monos, a protein of 33, a glucose of 82.  His IgG Index was 0.60 which was high borderline normal.
	Diagnosis:  (1) Guillain - Barre syndrome  (2) Coagulopathy, etiology unknown, resolved.
	Procedures:  (1) Lumbar puncture, 92) EMG, NCV, (3) Plasmapheresis, two courses.

880520:	Unauthorized absence from Patrol Squadron 9, 0730, intentions unknown.

880526:	Surrendered onboard Patrol Squadron 9, 0200. (5 days), at Moffett Field, CA.

880629:	Applicant requested discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions in lieu of charges that were referred to a Special Court Marital on 14 June 88.  Applicant stated he was guilty of the following charged offenses:
	Charge I:  Unauthorized absences 
	Charge II:  Enter the BEQ lounge when told not to enter.
	Charge V:  Admitted he signed the restricted men's muster sheet for an earlier time than when actually reported which occurred on 31 May.
	Charge VI:  Wrote check of $65.00 at Navy Exchange and did not keep sufficient funds in account to cover check.  Stated he did not write other checks since checkbook was stolen by an acquaintance and he wrote the other checks.
	Charge VII:  Admit being late for restriction on 31 May.  Also admitted making long distance telephone calls form ASD Supply, NAS Moffett Field in amount of $9.77.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 880708 under Other Than Honorable conditions due to Unsatisfactory performance - failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily (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 issues 1 and 2, the Board determined these issues are without merit.  The applicant states his inservice disability impaired his ability to serve.  Additionally, he requests the Board’s consideration of clemency based on his post-service conduct.  

The applicant made a voluntary statement that he was guilty of the charges made against him and requested discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions in lieu of court martial.  Therefore, the affects of the applicant’s disability on his ability to serve, is an invalid reason for upgrading the characterization of his discharge.  Relief denied.

The Board reviewed all documents provided to determine if clemency was warranted based on post-service conduct but the applicant did not provide any such documentation for review.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A) effective 15 Jun 87 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630300, SEPARATION CF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. 

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 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