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

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00334

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010126, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010817.  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)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I feel that my discharge should be changed to Honorable because I was involuntarily separated from service due to my medical problem which I was trying to resolve while on active duty.  I was discharged by reason of Convenience of the Government on the basis of physical or mental conditions as evidenced by medical diagnosis of motion sickness.  (Enclosed are copy of DD214 and a medical record pertaining my therapy.)  I do not think I deserve this type of discharge for it was based solely on one incident when I went to CO's Mast for missing movement Art. 87; false and unauthorized pass Art 134 and was awarded reduced in rate to E-3, 30 x restriction 30 days x duty, forfeiture pay $586 x 2 months.  The punishment itself was disproportionate t the offense for which it was imposed.  I do not think I deserve to get General Under Honorable either.  I intentionally missed movement bec. I've had repeated problems with motion sickness while my ship has been underway.  I've been attached on board USS HIGGINS (DDG-76) for more than a year and I cannot afford to be sick anymore.  I felt I cannot go on throwing up, getting dizzy every time the ship gets out to sea.  My command knew about this and it is sad to think they did not acknowledge it.  I joined the navy because I like the idea that you can go back to school after you serve and get trained in a skill while you're in.  I had joined not to be sick and get dizzy all the time at work.  I was not productive with my job as a Personnelman on board ship because I have chronic motion sickness.  All I wanted to do is make it out there, but I got discharged because I cannot fulfill what is expected of me because I get sick at sea and that I got General Under Honorable because for the same reason just because I get sick at sea.  

I was also punished for having a second ID card.  The only reason I had this card was I had lost my first card and then found it months later when I had gotten a replacement.  I've never had the chance to turn the other one in.  It was discovered when I missed movement on Feb 14, 2000 and somebody from my command opened it in my rack.  I feel that given my history of medical problems, the reason I missed movement and the simple mistake in not turning the other card in, I should not be punished so severely and should not get General Under Honorable.  Because I know one CO's Mast is not enough to give me that and I only got in trouble once just because I don't want to jeopardize my health any further.  My health means more important to me than anything else and I am positive everyone feels the same way.  I very respectfully ask to have my appeal reviewed.  With an Honorable discharge, I can feel a sense of pride that I once in the Navy and had gotten out honorably.   I am appealing because I do not think it is fair for me because first of all, I did not ask to be discharged, but since I cannot fulfill my job efficiently at sea, they did it anyways.  I could have stayed and my command could have considered other alternatives so I can finish my entire enlistment but I was not given a change to do that.  Thus, losing all (almost) benefits including my GI bill, my chance to go back to school.  I've only been in for 1 year and 10 mos, almost 2 years and given this type of discharge, I lose it.  Having an Honorable discharge means a lot to me because I did not do anything to harm anyone or anything to deserve General Under Hon. that prevents me from furthering my education and be able to help and serve others with my new sill of learning.  Thank You.  Very respectfully, (Applicant) 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
9 pages from medical record
Administrative Discharge Package (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	971105 - 980504	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980505		Date of Discharge:  000309

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  PN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, COAST GUARD MUC 

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:

990329:	Sick Bay, USS HIGGINS (DDG 76):  20 year old female with chief complaint of motion sickness after getting underway.  States she always gets motion sickness. 
	Assessment:  Motion Sickness
	Plan:  PIC methazine, Sick in Quarters for today, follow-up.

990522:	Sick Bay, USS HIGGINS (DDG 76):  20 year old female with chronic.  Symptoms not relieved with Dramamine, meclizine, or PIC methazine.  Symptom currently times 2 months, takes Dramamine on a daily basis. 
	Assessment:  Chronic Motion Sickness
	Plan:  Will refer to ENT on arrival in San Diego.

990630:	NMC San Diego:  Impression:  Chronic Motion Sickness, EPTE.
	Plan:  Undergo testing and rehabilitation, VOR exercises.  If symptoms improved, should be returned for deployment.

991215:	NMC San Diego:  Pt complains headache, dizziness, nausea, & vomiting on set March 99 with seagoing.  Also history of air sickness 2 years ago.  History of motion sickness in family.  Symptoms resolve after getting off ship.
	Assessment:  Motion Sickness
	Plan:  Return to Counseling for follow-up 16 DEC 99.

000201:	NMC San Diego:  Pt states motion sickness persists with car motion.  Now ship due to be underway next weeks.  VOR exercise #3 reproduces symptoms.
Assessment:  Motion Sickness
Plan:  Met goals of achieving exercise program.  Refer back to Dr. H_ for further administrative consideration. 

000224:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 87:  missing movement; violation of UCMJ Article 134: false or unauthorized pass.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $586 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000301:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service as evidenced by diagnosis of motion sickness. 

000306:	Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000307:	Commanding Officer, USS HIGGINS (DDG 76) advised BUPERS that applicant was discharged with a  general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability.  Commanding officer's comments (verbatim):  "PNSN (Applicant) was notified on 1 March 2000 of administrative separation and waived her right to have an Administrative Board review this action before separation processing is finalized.  In light of Seaman (Applicant)'s diagnosis of motion sickness.  I concur with the Naval Medical Center, San Diego that she is unsuitable for continued naval service.  Therefore, Seaman (Applicant) was separated from the naval service with a General discharge per the provisions of MILPERSMAN 1910 - Enlisted (ADSEP)."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000309 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability (motion sickness). (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).

The applicant’s issue states that she feels the discharge awarded was unfair and she discussed the reasons surrounding her misconduct.  The Board sympathizes with the applicant’s medical condition, however found no inequity in the discharge awarded.  Honorable service characterization is reserved for sailors who do their duty and abide by the Navy’s rules and regulations.  The applicant’s documented misconduct, violation of UCMJ Article 87- Missing Movement, is considered a serious military offense.  Her misconduct could have resulted in a punitive discharge or a characterization of other than honorable.  The Board found no inequity in the discharge awarded.  Relief is denied.

The applicant also stated in her issue that she is unable to secure educational benefits due to the characterization of her discharge.  The Board does not consider this a decisional issue.  The applicant should consult with the VA for veteran’s eligibility.  The Board will not change a discharge for this reason.  Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate positive community service, employment history, and clean police record.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant 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 recommended. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective
20 May 99 until Present, 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 “afls10.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