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

ex-ITSA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00520

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010316, 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 the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010928.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge but found the characterization inequitable.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE /CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (Equity Issue) This former member opines that his service was performed honestly and faithfully without any negative conduct.  With the sole basis of his separation due to a medical condition outside his control, he avers that he is deserving of a fully honorable discharge.  On this basis, he petitions the Board’s relief.

Documentation

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

Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Thirty-one pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990625 - 990930	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991001		Date of Discharge:  000522

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  75

Highest Rate:  ITSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

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:

000329:	Optometry Department forwards applicant's waiver request to BUMED.

000329:	Staff Ophthalmologist recommendation:  ELMS.

000330:	Chief of Bureau of Medicine and Surgery denied request for waiver.

000331:	Medical Evaluation: Diagnosis: Optic neuritis.

000428:	Staff Judge Advocate Office, Great Lakes returned waiver package to SSC Legal due to absence of medical officer's waiver recommendation.

000508:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge 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 optic neuritis.

000508:	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 obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

000511:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a 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 optic neuritis.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  Per reference (a), enclosures (1) through (3) are forwarded.  On 28 April 2000, I requested a waiver of physical standards on behalf of ITSA (applicant) which waiver was denied based on the absence of a medical officer's recommendation to retain ITSA (applicant).  The Optometry Department declined to recommend retention in ITSA (applicant's) case due to the severity of his Optic Neuritis which will eventually lead to blindness.  I concur with the physician's recommendation that ITSA (applicant) be separated from the naval service based on his medical condition and the denied request to allow him to remain on active duty.  Therefore, I consider him to have no further potential for naval service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000522 general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental 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 discharge was proper but inequitable (C and D).

The applicant’s issue states:  “(Equity Issue) This former member opines that his service was performed honestly and faithfully without any negative conduct.  With the sole basis of his separation due to a medical condition outside his control, he avers that he is deserving of a fully honorable discharge.  On this basis, he petitions the Board’s relief.”  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge was inequitably assigned at the time of discharge.  The applicant had no misconduct during his abbreviated career and his discharge should have been based on his service record.  The applicant served only 7 months of a 4 year enlistment but the illness he contracted was the result of a medical condition beyond his control and not a disability.  The Board determined the applicant should not be punished for not completing his enlistment contract.  After careful review the Board determined the applicant’s service record reflects honorable service to his country.  Relief is granted.

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