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

 ex-ADAR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01077

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020725, 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 030424.  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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge was inequitable because the violation of UCMJ, Article 86 was not right for my case.  On the record, I had never been absent at work.  I just did not make it on time several times.  I'd never been absent at work.  I just had many tardiness at work due to sleeping problems.  I had a medical problem and psychological problem.  The INH I had been taking since boot camp had bad side effects on me.  I often felt fatigue and sleeping problem.  Also, I was in mild depression, ever since I was stationed at NAS Lemoore.  I was supposed to discharge by medical discharge with the honorable one.  Even my doctors called my division and asked for the honorable discharge with medical discharge but my division ignored them.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Medical documentation 
Applicant's Performance Evaluation (From 00JAN15 to 00JUN23) 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990205 - 990411	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990412		Date of Discharge:  000630

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  15			AFQT:  57

Highest Rate:  ADAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)		OTA:  2.00 (5.0 eval)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990510:	PMU advised Applicant to take INH (isoniazid) for the next six months to help prevent tuberculosis.  Pt to start meds.  

990520:	Medical consultation:  23 year old male states he found out approximately 3 years ago when attempting to donate blood that he had Hepatitis B.  Pt states it was there, but now it's gone.  LFT's drawn on 19 Apr 99 are within normal limits.  Pt being seen by PMU for PPD Reactor & taking INH 300mg for 6 months, meds started on 10 May 99.  Pt states "no problems with meds."  Member has no signs and symptoms of Hep B, states "I feel OK." Hep B panel drawn as per Dental request.  Pt fit for duty.  

991228:	Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA:  Symptom - INH follow-up.

000303:	Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA:  NO SHOW.

000308:	Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA:  NO SHOW.

000316:	Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA:  Chief compliant - "Sleeping problems."  Since in Lemoore has been tired "all the time" - states he sleeps well but is tired daily when "hanging out with friends."  Denies appetite or weight changes.  Wonders if INH is responsible but has been off that for months.  Does not like being in line shack - "I thought I was going to be a mechanic in the shop."  Has not sought out career guidance & does not understand normal progression toward being a mechanic.  Did 3 years of college before entering Navy - grades forced him out - "I didn't manage the classes well."  Now thinks he might like to be a businessman - wonders if he can get out of the Navy without OTH.
	Impression:  Mild depression.
	Advice - Make use of career guidance - work hard toward what you want. 

000322:	Sickcall:  Pt reports he is "OK" but still interested in getting out of Navy.  Still has not discussed his status & options with supervisor or counselor.  No symptoms of hypoglycemic.

000323:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Absence without leave (10FEB00).
	Award: Forfeiture of $563 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

000515:	Punishment awarded at NJP on 00MAR23 awarded reduction in grade to E-2 and forfeiture of $563 pay per month for 1 month vacated.

000515:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs):  Absence without leave.
	Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

[RETENTION WARNING AND DISCHARGE PROCESSING PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD.]

000630:	Applicant discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000630 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions.  Failure to be on time to an assigned place of duty is a violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  While he may feel that his medical and psychological problems were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Board found no indication that he was inequitably or improperly denied an honorable discharge for medical reasons.  Relief denied.
 
The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 “afls14.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