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

 ex-YNSA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00819

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010530, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the applicant converted case to a documentary discharge review.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020307.  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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Dear Chairperson:

After review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review Of Discharge or Dismissal From The Armed Forces Of The United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the applicant, in her request that she given the opportunity to upgrade her current under other than Honorable Conditions to her receiving a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions or a Honorable Discharge. (FSM) joined the United States Naval Service on September 16, 1986 to June 27, 1988 where she served without any misconduct or need for non-judicial punishment.  The only unusual notation on her Recommendation For Administration Separation is on the narrative reason for Discharge is noted as Separation in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial.  (FSM) stated to the authority of note that she went AWOL for a hundred and ninety-four days was for to serve the needs of her family, who were about to be evicted from their home?
The (FSM) seeks to up grade her discharge to improve her quality of life and to seek a for favorable Discharge.  She further stated that a Honorable Discharge from the Naval Service is a matter of Honor and respect.  We respectfully request the (FSM) be given complete consideration by the Board.  We also request you consider each reasonable explanation submitted by the (FSM) who is attempting now to correct her youthful and immature behavior she demonstrated in her past.  During the (FSM) entire military service of other (23) months she served without any infraction or acts of misconduct as otherwise noted by the authority. We ask for the Boards careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.  Respectfully,

Documentation

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

Letter from Vet Center dated May 22, 2001
Copy of unofficial transcript
Letter of recommendation dated March 30, 2001
Job/character reference dated April 20, 2001
Letter of recommendation dated April 27, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	860131 - 860915	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860916		Date of Discharge:  880627

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  YNSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.6 (1)			Behavior:  3.6 (1)		OTA:  3.6

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  194

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

870324:	Medical record: Request seasickness prevention.  Meclizine 25 mg.

870511:	Medical record: Four episodes of sleepwalking while on ship since March, two episodes in boot camp. Assessment: Sleepwalker, probable situational reaction to stress of major life _______.  Plan: Document episodes.  ________.  Psych consult.

870519:	Psychiatric clinic: Episodes are not inconsistent with somnambulism.  Further episodes should be documented and result in administrative separation.

870522:	Medical record: Imp: The descriptions of the reported incidents are consistent with somnambulism.  She also appears to be experiencing an adjustment disorder with mildly depressed mood.  Rec: Given the danger associated with incidents of sleepwalking, administrative separation is considered advisable.  It is recommended that any witnesses of the reported, or any future episodes provide written documentation so that the command can follow the steps for administrative separation.  The opportunity for individual follow-up appointments was offered.
  
870629:	Psychiatric clinic:  Now that sufficient statements have been made by witnesses, the patient should be administratively separated.

871011:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 11Oct87.

871026:	Applicant missed ship's movement.

871103:	Applicant missed ship's movement.

871111:	Applicant declared a deserter.

880422:	Applicant apprehended by Mononalia County Sheriff Department, Morgantown, WV at 1530, 23Apr88.  Applicant returned to military control on 1542, 22Apr88 (194 days/apprehended).

880627:	DD Form 214:  Discharged under other than honorable conditions/ separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Separation package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 880627 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The Board found that her performance prior to her desertion does not mitigate the seriousness of her offense. The applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  While she may feel that her immaturity and family problems were factors that contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

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.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of her not using drugs and maintaining sobriety, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to her discharge.  She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 24 May 89, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT‑MARTIAL. 

B.  A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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