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

 ex-SR, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00628

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030226.  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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040205.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“ISSUE 1: Use brief (letter requesting review) pg 1 paragraph 2 sentences 4-6.

I am fully aware that I was in error when I chose to willingly commit the infraction, however I was unaware of the full extinct of the penalties my actions would carry.  I was following my heart, which longed to be with my husband of five months at that time.  I felt alone and afraid being totally on my own with no friends or family around me as I had been accustomed too.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant, undated
Character reference from Deacon’s Board Chairman, Mt. Moriah Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., dated November 6, 2002
Character reference, dated August 16, 2002
Certificate of appreciation, dated School year 2000-2001
Certificate of appreciation, dated School year 2001-2002
Letter from Charleston Southern University, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, December 2001
Dean’s List of Scholars, Fall 2002, Charleston Southern University, dated December 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:  950531		Date of Discharge:  960719

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  01  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  70

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  27

*  No Marks Found

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:

960520:	Medical Evaluation: Impression: (1) Suicide ideation  - resolved in contest of naval discharge.  (2) Borderline personality.  (3) Marital problems (adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and emotion).  (4) Malingering.  Recommendation: Expeditious administrative discharge.  This individual should be held legally accountable for UA then separated.  She is unlikely to ever effectively adjust to the minimum standards of military discipline.

960624:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 0540, 960516 to 1830, 960521 (5 days), (2) Unauthorized absence 960528 to 960620 (22 days).
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960701:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service as evidenced by diagnosis made by competent military authority which concluded that your medical condition is of such severity as to render you incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  

960701:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

960701:	Commanding Officer directed the Applicant's discharge entry level separation by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability.

961126:	Commanding Officer discharged Applicant 960719 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a. physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960719 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) 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:  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 she may feel that her family was 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, demonstrating she was unsuitable for further service.  Her service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP).  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.  
 
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, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate her misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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 13, effective 960624 - 961002), 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 “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