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

 ex-MMFR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00864

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000629, 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 010209.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change.  The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 4a. Grade, Rate or Rank, should read:  “MMFR” vice “MMFA” and Block 4b, Pay Grade, should read:  "E1" vice "E2".  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 despite his physical  limitations, he served faithfully, honorably, to the best of his ability and therefore warrants a fully honorable discharge.

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:

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Character Reference from Tallahassee Community College, K_ D. M_, dtd 27 Mar 00

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980511 - 980708	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980709		Date of Discharge:  990520

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  MMFR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

981116:	Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes:  Complains of headache for 1 day.  Pt is slightly dizzy also.  Pt has not tried Tylenol and refuses over the counter meds and would like to see a provider.  

990103:	Resurrection Medical Center, Chicago, IL, Emergency Dept Report:  Possible Seizure at 1830 O'Hare.  Pt has witnessed seizure on flight in seat.  No injury. No seizure activity since that time.  Diagnosis:  Seizure disorder.

990104:	Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes:  Chief Complaint - Pt had seizure last p.m.  Pt had one other seizure 9 months ago, went to civilian E.R yesterday.  Pt states this when the plane was landing.
	Assessment:  Hypoglycemia?? Rule out seizure disorder.
	Plan:  CBC, UA, FBS, refer to Neurology.

990112:	Branch Medical Clinic, NAVHOSP, Great Lakes, IL:  Pt with history of alteration of consciousness lasting 15-30 minutes prior to enlistment.  Presented to medical with similar episode 3 Jan 99.  Pt evaluated by Neurology.  Diagnosis:  Recurrent Alteration of Consciousness - loss of consciousness 2 times (recurrent).  Condition not correctable to meet Navy Standards.  ELMS recommended by Neurology after reviewing the Pt's data.

990120:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of service possible as General (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to other designated physical condition as evidence of diagnosis of recurrent alteration of consciousness by a medical officer on 12 January 1999.

990120:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to make a statement and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

990121:	Applicant's statement requesting to be retained in the Navy.

990202:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to other designated physical conditions.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "MMFR (Applicant) lost consciousness on two occasions.  He was evaluated by a medical officer at Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes on 12 January 1999, and was recommended for separation.  Per DoD Directive 6130.3, I concur with the physician's recommendation that MMFR (Applicant) be separated from the naval service on the basis of his recurrent alteration of consciousness.  I recommend a discharge characterized as General (under honorable conditions) based on convenience of the government on the basis of other designated physical conditions.  MMFR (Applicant) graduated from Machinist Mate "A" School."

990423:	BUMED ruled that applicant does not meet established physical standards due to recurrent loss of consciousness and that a waiver of the physical standards is not recommended.

990503:	CNTC, Great Lakes directed the applicant's discharge by reason of convenience of the Government due to other physical and/or mental condition with an uncharacterized discharge (entry level separation) since he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder prior to having served 180 days on active duty.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990520 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to condition, not a disability (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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge was inequitable (C and D).

In response to the two issues submitted by the applicant’s representative, the Board found that the applicant’s discharge should be changed to Honorable.  The Board determined that the applicant's service prior to being diagnosed with his medical condition was of an honorable nature with no misconduct of record to warrant a general discharge.  Accordingly, the applicant’s characterization of discharge shall change to honorable/condition, not a disability.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 19 May 99, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS.

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