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

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00563

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990315, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 000110.  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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. Issue #1:  I don't feel that the dream I was sold by the recruiter came anyway near to becoming a reality.  I went into the Navy under the guaranteed SEAL program and it was only two or three weeks and an unexpected swim test later that my naval career was literally cast adrift in the Navy.  I had been under the impression that I would be guaranteed a trip to Coronado.  This doesn't excuse my actions but in the light of the ensuing despondency the trouble I caused makes more sense.
Issue #2:  I am also certain that with the proper legal team I would have at least been cleared of the theft charge.  It is technically impossible to steal something that shouldn't have been there in the first place.  The same can be said of the destruction of government property.  No one ever told me not to paint my bunk.  It all goes back to the unless other directed and restless youth that I was at that time.
Issue #3  Ultimately there was nothing dishonorable about the way in which I denied appeals and just served the time for the crimes I was convicted of.  From the three days bread and water, to the twenty or so following days, I made the mistake and paid the appropriate price.  That seems like an honorable action to me. Accepting responsibility in the immediate and not dragging things out seemed the best solution at the time and the burden of a dishonorable discharge seems one I shouldn't be forced to carry for the remainder of my life.

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)	960131 - 960430	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960501		Date of Discharge:  971020

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  25			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  95

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.33

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:    3 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

961003:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  Insubordinate conduct towards a CPO.  Did on or about 2Oct96 was disrespectful to his CPO, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Incapacitated for the proper performance of duties.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970711:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failed to obey a written order; violation of UCMJ Article 91: Disobey a lawful order.
	Award:  3 days bread and water.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970714:	Summary Court Martial 
Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, 2 Specifications.
	Specification 1:  Did, on or about 10 June 97 was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to comlete his assigned work.
	Specification 2:  Did on ora about 10 June 97 was derelict in the performance of his duties.
	Charge II:  violation of UCMJ, Article 108, Did, on or about 15 June 97 destroy government property.
	Charge III:  violation of UCMJ, Article 121, Did, on or about 23 June 97 steal a laptop computer, property of the US Government.  
	Sentence:  CHL for 25 days.
	CA 970807:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

970801:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970801:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.

970813:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970821:	COMCRUDESGRU THREE 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 971020  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).

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that these facts are irrelevant to the equity and propriety of the discharge.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.

In response to the applicant’s issue 2, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his youth was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board found that discharge the applicant was given was based on his time in service, which is accurately reflected as having been served as less than honorable.  

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.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days and if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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