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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

   ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00429

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050118.  The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20050831.  After a thorough review of all available 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 neither the character of the discharge or the reason for discharge shall change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Due to my hospital stay on active duty, I was told I was no longer fit for full duty, and was discharged.  I had planned to complete a full tour of active duty, and receive a Honorable Discharge.  I am requesting a Honorable Discharge.”

Documentation

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

Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs dtd January 5, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19990602 – 19990629		
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19990630		Date of Discharge:  20001122

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01 04 23 
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  17 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (2) 	Behavior:  2.0 (2) 		OTA:  2.25 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225).
.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

000302:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence, appointed place of duty, 000216), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000302:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (unauthorized absence, place of duty, 000216).
Award:  Restriction for 15 days, extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000610:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (failure to obey a general order, 000604), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000610:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (failure to obey a general order, 000604).
Award:  3 days confinement on Bread and Water.  No indication of appeal in the record.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20001122 by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of all available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  After a thorough review of Applicant’s case the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general (under honorable conditions) discharge 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 two nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings, the first for a violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence) and the second for a violation of Article 92 (failure to obey a general order).  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls short of that required for an upgrade in the characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  Therefore, the Board presumed the Applicant’s discharge to have been conducted in accordance with that described in reference “A”.  If the Applicant feels his discharge was administratively flawed he bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.

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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Applicant has not provided documentation for the Board to consider.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  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 27, effective 
27 March 2000 until 13 Aug 2001, Article 1910-122 (formerly 3620225), Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s) 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.   Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023