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

 ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00412

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990201, 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 991206.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 4a, Grade, Rank or Rank should read:  "MMFN" vice "MM3", Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605” vice “3630600”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Discharge based on non-pattern misconduct prior to event leading to discharge conduct was honorable.  I was selected as an E-4 to fill an E-6 billet in Reactor Training based on good conduct, integrity and professional knowledge.

2.  Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits which have been paid for ($1200) are denied to me based on type of discharge.  Benefits are required for me to persue my education as a doctor of pharmacy.

3.  Other than honorable Discharge caused me to lost a High paying job for which I was otherwise qualified.  pending upgrade of discharge to Honorable conditions I would be allowed to reapply for this position.  Potential loss if discharge is not upgraded $27,000 per year.  This is the difference between my current $21,000 per year salary and my potential $48,000 per year salaries.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	921117 - 930816	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930817		Date of Discharge:  980423

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  08  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  NMF

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, MUC, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980313:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121.
	Specification: Larceny of a laptop computer of a value of about $2,198.98.
	Finding:  to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $1000, reduced to MMFN.
	CA action 980316:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.
	
980323:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980323:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980401:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments verbatim:  Misconduct due to commission of a serious offense warrants separation in this case.  MMFN (applicant) has demonstrated his unwillingness to conform to the rules and regulations of military service, and is a negative influence on this command and the naval service as a whole.  MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service.  Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that MMFN (applicant) be separated from the naval service under Other than Honorable Conditions.

980406:	Commander, Carrier Group SIX directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

The Board found the applicant’s first and third issue not germane to the propriety of the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant was found guilty at Captain’s Mast of larceny, a serious offense as defined by the UCMJ.  Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable equitable.

Concerning the applicant’s second issue, the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.   Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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, DC 20374-5023