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

 ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00214

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reenlistment code changed to anything other than an RE-5.  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 020731.  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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNCHARACTERIZED (Entry Level Separation)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  To Whom It May Concern:  I will get straight to the point.  I, J_ A_ S_ (applicant), was released from active duty in the U.S. Navy on 17 Oct 97.  The reason for my discharge was "somnambulism" (sleepwalking) which was disputed by myself to no end.  I felt that the individual who "claimed" to have seen this event was doing so in collaboration with another to either have me removed from duty or they were highly mistaken.  I never had a history of sleepwalking and it never happened since the initial claim.  I was and still am a very devoted individual and on a personal note I was destroyed when I learned I would be sent home.  Maybe it's fate but I must at least be given the opportunity to try again if I so desired.  I had a dream I was in the middle of fulfilling of becoming a seal diver.  I can't even have the chance of starting over with a re-entry code of RE-5.  I plea to have it changed!  Sleepwalking is not an issue and never was with me.  These claims were completely either a lie or a serious mistake.  I will attempt this plea several times if denied.  I wish to be in a status where I could go back to the U.S. Armed Forces, and I cannot do that with an RE-5.  Thank You, Sincerely for your time.  Sincerely, S_, J_ A. (Applicant)

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)	960614 - 970608	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970609		Date of Discharge:  971017

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  04  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1)	Behavior:  2.0 (1)		OTA:  2.0 (5.0 evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksman Ribbon 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (Entry Level Separation)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970908:	Mental Health Evaluation:  This is the first eval for this 18 year old single, Caucasian male with 3 months continuous active duty service in the USN.  He is stationed at Naval Sub School, New London and was referred to this clinic by HMC R_ of SubSchool Sickcall for an evaluation of somnambulism.  All information contained in this report was gained by interviewing the pt or from the pt's medical record and is considered reliable.
	History of Present Illness:  FA (Applicant) reported a 3 month history of somnambulism.  He stated that he had been observed sleepwalking by shipmates on 5 occasions.  He reported waking in areas away from his sleeping area and not having any recollection of how he arrived there.  He was confronted by a member of the duty crew recently, and this event was logged in the duty logbook.  FA (Applicant) stated that after this event he felt he should seek treatment in order to correct this problem for fear of disciplinary action.  He related a history of sleepwalking since he was 12 years of age.  He would wake up standing by his bed in various states of undress.  He did not report this to any members of his family.  He presented two written statements by shipmates for these recent occurrences.
	
Mental Status Examination: Revealed an 18 year old male who appeared his stated age.  Eye contact was good, speech was normal in rate, rhythm, and volume.  His mood was euthymic with congruent affect.  His manner was cooperative.  His narrative was logical and showed no evidence or psychotic or delusional processes.  He was oriented times three.  He denied having any suicidal or homicidal ideations and his judgment appeared intact.

970917:	Witness Statement from MM3 C_ A. W_, USN.

970917:	Witness Statement from SA W_ J_ P_, USN.

971006:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to physical or mental conditions - somnambulism. 

971008:	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.

971027:	Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine School, advised BUPERS that the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a physical or mental condition, not a disability - sleepwalking (somnambulism). 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971017 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) 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 and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “Uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct which would merit an “honorable” characterization.  The applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than five months in the military to warrant a change of discharge.  With respect to non-service related administrative matters, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  In addition, the Board found the applicant stated in his medical record that he had experienced sleep walking episodes since age 12.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore 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.  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.  The applicant 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, Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97),  Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - OTHER 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