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

 ex-BTFA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00457

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020228, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Houston, TX.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) did not travel and all personal appearance hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area.  NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021029.  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 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I was discharged on 9/13/93 due to medical reason, enuresis - not a disability, inspite of my desire to stay in the service.  I agreed to the type of discharge given to me, a general - under honorable conditions, without realizing the consequences of it in the future.  As it is, I want to go to school/college and use my G.I. bill, in which I contributed for a year, but I cannot qualify because of the type of discharge I got.

     Please, grant my request to upgrade my discharge type to honorable one so I can qualify for G.I. Bill benefits.

     Please, give me a chance to be heard by your honorable panel and plea my case before you.

     I look forward to meeting you, sir/madam.

Sincerely, (Signed by Applicant)

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Character Reference ltr from W. R_ G_, Senior Pastor dtd Nov 1, 2001
Character Reference ltr from R_ M. de G_
Letter from Applicant dtd Apr 23, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890620		Date of Discharge:  930910

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  21 (Doesn't exclude lost/confinement time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  15			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  BTFA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.2 (2)	Behavior:  3.5 (2)		OTA:  3.10

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  140 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

901226:	Missed sailing of vessel from NavSta, Subic Bay, RP this date.  Member was fully aware of ship's operating schedule as part of the operating forces of "Operation Desert Shield" on the morning of 26DEC90.

901227:	Report of Declaration of Desertion submitted having been an unauthorized absentee since 0830, 26 Dec 90 from USS OKINAWA, missing the sailing of vessel from foreign port.  Requested from American Embassy Manila that arrangements be made to return member to ship if apprehended or surrendered.

910514:	Surrendered to military authorities at 1330, 14 May 91, at TPU, Subic Bay, RP.

910514:	Report of Return of Deserter submitted.  

910528:	Returned to USS OKINAWA pending disciplinary action.

910813:	Special Court-Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, Specification: Unauthorized absence from 90DEC14 until 91MAY14 (140 days/S).
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 87, Specification: Missing ship's movement.
	Charge III:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, Specification: Procuring lawful currency or an article or thing of value, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Navy Federal Credit Union.
	Findings:  to Charges I, II, III and specification thereunder - guilty.
	Sentence:  CHL for 90 days, forfeiture of $275 per month for 3 months, reduction to E-1.
	CA 910910:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

910813:	Joined Naval Consolidated Brig, NAS, Miramar, San Diego CA, for confinement.

911031:	From confinement; to full duty.

930826:	Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA, Report of Medical Board:  27 year old BTFN stationed on USS ENGLAND who was referred for outpatient eval in June 93 with a diagnosis of nocturnal enuresis.
	Physical Exam:  Within normal limits except for a nontender, small, atrophic left testicle.  Cystoscopy along with cystometrogram which included an EMG, was normal.  X-rays of his lumbosacral spine were unremarkable.  Urine cultures were not diagnostic for malignancy and repeated urine cultures were negative.  Although pt was occasionally noncompliant, he has attempted time voiding, fluid restriction, and medication at night, including Ditropan and Tofranil, without significant improvement in his condition.  Maximum benefits of treatment have been obtained.
	SUMMARY OF DIAGNOSES:  Nocturnal Enuresis With Normal Structural Studies.  Doubt that this was aggravated by service.
	It is the opinion of Board that this pt be referred to the PEB for disposition, with the recommendation for separation from the Service to return to the Philippines as dictated by his enlistment contract.

930829:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service as evidenced by diagnosis of enuresis.

930903:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.  Member did not object to separation.

930914:	Commanding Officer advised BUPERS that Applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a physical or mental condition not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service as evidenced by diagnosis of enuresis.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  "BTFA (Applicant) is being separated from the naval service for the Convenience of the Government due to the physical condition enuresis (bedwetting) in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3620200.  This is a developmental defect that has been diagnosed by a Medical Board, and renders BTFA (Applicant) incompatible with the Naval Service.  BTFA (Applicant) has been a poor performer throughout his Naval service.  He has consistently demonstrated a lackadaisical attitude and made little effort towards advancement and none toward learning his rate.  While on board USS OKINAWA (LPH 3), BTFA (Applicant) absented himself from his unit without authority for a 140 day period, missing ships movement for Operation Desert Storm.  While assigned to ENGLAND, he has counted against our manning without producing a modicum of fruitful labor.  Due to these significant aspects of performance I am separating BTFA (Applicant) with a General, vice Honorable characterization of service.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 930910 General (Under Honorable Conditions) for convenience of the government due to a 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.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.   The Applicant’s characterization of service was awarded based upon his unauthorized absence from his ship during Operation Desert Storm.  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.  Relief not warranted.

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 5 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94),  Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF 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