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

 ex-SR, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00504

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030210.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area.  Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040311.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain, as corrected by the Board for Correction of Naval Records: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY - SOMNAMBULISM, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “The petitioner request that this Honorable Board review the enclosed document entitled “REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER NEW/MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR OTHER MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED.”  That after such review, premises considered, relief be granted to petitioner as requested in the above name document.”

Documentation

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

DD Form 149
Request for reconsideration under new/material evidence or other matter not previously considered (5 pages)
Board for Correction of Naval Records review, Docket number 1609-02, dated May 10, 2002 (6 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Letter from Applicant to Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated December 5, 2002
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from Applicant’s attorney, dated January 30, 2001
Decree confirming declaration as to change of name, dated October 2, 1991
Affidavit of Applicant’s, dated January 14, 2002
Bachelor of Science degree, dated June 6, 1999
University of Alabama transcript
National Honor Society in Psychology certificate, dated January 21, 1998
Juris Doctor degree, dated May 19, 2002
Instructions on how to read transcript
Character reference, dated January 11, 2002
Character reference, dated January 11, 2002
Character reference, dated January 28, 2002
Certificate
Certificate of good standing, dated June 24, 2001
Two pictures
Two pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter from Applicant, dated February 28, 2003
Letter from Applicant, dated January 19, 2004
Certificate of Admission, The Supreme Court of Alabama, dated December 30, 2003
Letter to Applicant from Admissions Clerk, dated June 18, 2003

Letter to Applicant from Clerk of the Court, dated January 13, 2004
Letter to Applicant from Admissions Clerk, dated June 17, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880120 - 880301	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880302			Date of Discharge:  890109

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  9				AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (1)	Behavior:  3.20 (1)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

880620:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from tutor sessions 13, 14, 15 June 1988), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880628:	NJP.  No further information found in service record.

880628:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disobeying lawful order from Lt and unauthorized absence from Content Area Retest at 1400), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880629:	Restriction and extra duty awarded at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 880628 is hereby set aside.

890104:	Applicant referred to fleet mental health clinic for sleepwalking.  [Extracted from BCNR’s decision dated 020510.]

890109:	Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability (somnambulism).

020510:	BCNR decision, docket 1609-02.

Discharge package missing from service record

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890109 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability interfering with performance of duty. (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:  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.  While he may feel that certain aspects of his childhood were a contributing factor, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) and two retention warnings thus substantiating the general discharge.  An upgrade to honorable conditions would be inappropriate.  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 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 5, effective 15 Jun 87 until 10 Jan 89), 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 “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