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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00646

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010410, 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 011031.  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: ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, formerly 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I was discharged in 92 for sleepwalking.  I believe this discharge was inaccurate based on the simple fact that I don't sleepwalk.  I was having some personal family problems at the time and I felt I needed to be home to be with my family.  I know that if you sleepwalk you will be discharged from the Navy.  So I proceeded to do so.  At the time my Father was a heavy drinker and sometimes wouldn't come home.  I have two younger siblings that my Mother was trying to raise.  I needed to be home to help my Mother and try to be the man of the house.  I realize what I did was inexcusable and very foolish.  I deeply regret my actions.

     Some nine years later, I am married and have a beautiful daughter.  I would like to tell her that I served my country proudly, but I can't because of this unfortunate incident.  I wash to make things right by reenlisting.

     Thank you in advance for considering my application.

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	920715 - 920720	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920721		Date of Discharge:  920915

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  01  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  46

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*	Behavior:  NMF*		OTA:  NMF*

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in service record.

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

ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920821:	SR R_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920821:	SR M_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920831:	Medical Evaluation (REU/MHU Medical Clinic, San Diego):  This is the first NTC MHU visit for this 20 year old single, Caucasian, male recruit on 5-4 date of training at RTC, referred her for 1 documented episode of sleepwalking.  Relates stress but is unsure of the reason.  Says his training is going well but at night he unable to focus himself.  He denies alcohol and drug use or abuse history.  He joined the Navy for "employment".  Hardcard indicates that he is motivated sailor and he voices his desire to continue with his Naval career as well…………He denies past/current suicidal/homicidal ideations.  He denies hallucinations as well.
	Plan:  Refer to provider for further eval.
	Provider's Note:  Pt is concerned that he continues to sleepwalk and reportedly has had 10 incidents during training.  Pt expressed ambivalent feelings about continuing in training.
	MSE:  Pt reported drinking heavily from 12 - 14 but denied present alcohol abuse.  He denied any drug use as well as any psychological counseling.  His father is an alcoholic and his natural mother is a drug abuser.
Diagnostic Impression:  AXIS I:  R/O Sleepwalking Disorder, AXIS II: No Diagnosis, AXIS III:  None Known
Recommendation:  1 - Pt to be given a trail of duty to include mandatory Stress Management Class, 2 - Pt to sleep on the bottom bunk and to sleep by the entrance way where Staff can monitor him at night, 3 - Further episodes to be documented by Staff.

920901:	SR J_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920901:	SR Y_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920902:	Medical Evaluation (REU/MHU Medical Clinic, San Diego):  This is the second MHU visit for this 20 year old, single. Caucasian, male SR on 6 - 1 date of training.  Pt seen and evaluated and given a trial of duty on 31 Aug 92.  Pt returns today with another documented incident of sleepwalking on 1 Sep 92.  
	Diagnostic Impression:  AXIS I - Sleepwalking Disorder, AXIS II - 
No diagnosis, AXIS III - None Known
Recommendations:  Entry Level Separation for sleepwalking disorder.

920905:	SR J_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920905:	SR B_, observed applicant sleepwalking and signed witness statement.

920908:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for entry level separation by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions, not a disability interfering with performance of duty (somnambulism) as evidenced by severe sleepwalking disorder as evidenced by a medical officer's evaluation and witnesses statements. 

920908:	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.

920909:	CO, RTC, San Diego, CA directed the applicant's Entry Level Separation by reason of convenience of the government due to other physical or mental condition, not a disability interfering with performance of duty (Somnambulism).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920915 with an Entry Level Separation for convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability interfering with performance of duty (Somnambulism). (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).

Issue 1.  The applicant claimed he does not sleepwalk.  However, the applicant was diagnosed with a sleepwalking disorder by a competent medical authority.  The applicant claims he pretended to sleepwalk so he could be discharged from the Navy.  He was successful in convincing the medical authorities he had a sleepwalking disorder.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as "Entry Level Separation" unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an "honorable" characterization. Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during the less that 2 months while serving in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable" The Board could discern no impropriety or inequity in the processing or characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 AUG 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

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