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

ex-SA, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00348

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990107 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990920.  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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “3630605” vice “3630600”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I would like to change my General to an Honorable so I may receive my GI BIL.  I am attending college to receive my BA in Clinical Pathology.  Tuition is very expensive and I do need money to continue my education.  I feel that I did serve to my capability.  I do agree that going to Captains Mass is wrong but humans do make mistakes.  I was kicked out because of a sequence of misconduct.  The 1st Cap Mass was for kissing a boy in the lounge.  In my opinion that should be thrown out since the highest ranking officer in the U.S. did not get impeached for his misconduct.  The 2nd was XO Mass for; a former bunk mate said; a pipe she had was mine.  This was thrown out due to no proof, she was a liar.  In 1996 a car accident in Japan did occur, the driver was blamed on me.  I remember waking up in the passenger side, I blacked out, therefore,  I don’t remember.  Yes, I was out after curfew, blamed for the accident, I do not remember backing the car out that damaged the easethroughpipe but took responsibility for the accident.  These are the reasons why I was discharged.  I would like my file reviewed, my education is the way that II will not have to rely on any government assistance.  The only reason why I did enlist in the U.S. NAVY is to receive my education benefits.  I was young, away from home, and I do not think I should be punished the rest of my life.  During that time; I did loose a sister and could not handle the pain of my lost.  If you would like to know more about my character you may be informed by: Commander W_ B_ USS SAIPAN.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	940930 – 941218       COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941219		Date of Discharge:  970211

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:     NMA	Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA	4.0 evals
Performance:     3.50 (2)	Behavior:  2.50 (2)		OTA:  3.00	5.0 evals

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950629:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 Specs):  (1) Failure to obey lawful order, to wit:  wrongfully having a male in female berthing on 22Jun95, (2) Failure to obey lawful order, to wit:  wrongfully engaging in public displays of affection on 23Jun95..
	Awarded:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 7 days.  Forfeiture of $75 suspended for 2 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961219:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):  (1) Violate a lawful general regulation; to wit: wrongfully being off Fleet Activities Sasebo between the hours of 0030 -0530 on 0230, 19Dec96, (2) Violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: wrongfully operating a personally owned vehicle without a driver's permit on 0230, 19Dec96, violation of UCMJ Article 107:  Making a false official statement on 19Dec96; violation of UCMJ Article 109:  Destruction of a drainage pipe on 0553, 19Dec96 by striking it with a passenger vehicle, violation of UCMJ Article 111:  Driving while intoxicated on 0230, 19Dec96; violation of UCMJ Article 134:  Overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties on 0940, 19Dec96.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $490.35 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970111:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.

970111:	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

970211:	Commanding officer discharged applicant general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970211 general (under honorable conditions)/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).

In the applicant’s issue, the Board found NJP fairly and equitably discharged by the commanding officer, and the commanding officer’s findings were neither contested nor appealed by the applicant.  Further, per Ref A the commanding officer properly discharged the applicant with General (under honorable conditions)/misconduct.  Relief denied.

While the applicant is commended for furthering herself with a pursuit of a college degree, the NDRB will not grant relief based on this issue alone. The Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to allow her to go back to school. The applicant was briefed on the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. BILL).  Specifically, she was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. BILL.  Relief denied.

The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  While she may feel that her immaturity was a factor that contributed to her action, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

If the applicant still believes that her discharge should be upgraded, she is encouraged to continue her pursuits and is reminded she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023