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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 (Deceased), ex-ENFN, USN 
Docket No. ND05-01013

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050601.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions).  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to submission of the application, the Applicant’s mother notified the Board of Applicant’s death and requested continuation of the application. 

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051114.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain  General (Under Honorable Conditions)  by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Medical conditions”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293.)

“I have 3 good conduct medals and 3 NAM’s”

Documentation

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

Letter to the Applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dtd February 18, 2005
Physician’s certification of medical examination for mental illness, filed June 14, 2004 (2)
Note from Applicant’s mother, dtd June 13, 2005
Applicant’s DD Form 149
Statement from psychiatrist, E_ J_, dtd November 17, 2004
Application for temporary commitment for mental illness, filed June 14, 2004
Applicant’s death certificate, dtd June 13, 2005
Partial article on Esophageal and Gastric Varices
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Recommended Diet from Branch Medical Clinic
Basic information about Gastroenteritis from Branch Medical Clinic
Two pages of Applicant’s medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19860902 - 19870105	COG
	Active:   USN	19870106 - 19900715	HON
	               USN	19900716 - 19970703	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19970704		Date of Discharge:  19990712

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  00  08  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	6 days
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  28

Years Contracted:  2

Education Level:  9				AFQT:  72

Highest Rate:  EN2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (1)			Behavior:  3.00 (1)		OTA:  3.71

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Joint Meritorious Unit Award (2), Navy Achievement Medal (3), Good Conduct Medal (3), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Battle Efficiency “E” Award, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Coast Guard Special Operation Service Ribbon

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

970704:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 2 years.

990412:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 990412.

990419:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0530 on 990419 (6 days/surrendered).

990427:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-4.  Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990712:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990712 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

On the DD Form 293, the Applicant indicated to the NDRB that he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge and desired an upgrade to either honorable or general (under honorable conditions).  The Board did note for the record that the Applicant was in fact awarded a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  As such, the Board construed the application as a request to upgrade a general (under honorable conditions) characterization to a fully honorable discharge.

In the absence of a complete discharge package or service record, the Board presumes the Applicant committed a serious offense, was properly notified and processed by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and that a general (under honorable conditions) was an appropriate characterization of his service.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The Applicant has submitted no documentation or other evidence to rebut the above presumption that he committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and his service merited a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the Applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant implies that his medical conditions were the cause of his misconduct.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his medical condition had any impact whatsoever on his military service or was the cause of his misconduct.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s representative remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  The NDRB presumed the Applicant committed an offense for which the Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial.

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

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

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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