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

 
 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00010

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991001, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000606.  After a thorough review of the records, 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/HARDSHIP, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  “1910-110” vice “1910-304”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

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)	970613 - 971013	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  971014		Date of Discharge:  980807

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  09  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  99

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  18 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/HARDSHIP, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980619:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from 0900, 14May98 to 0730 2Jun98.
	Award:  [NOT KNOWN, EXTRACTED FROM CO'S LTR OF 21 AUG98]

980707:	Applicant requested a hardship discharge.
	Description of Hardship:   For the past six years my mother, D- C_, and I have owned and operated the American Karate Academy.  Before my departure into the Navy she underwent major reconstructive wrist surgery that has not healed properly.  Another surgery is expected in the near future and the physical as well as emotional stress is becoming to much.  D- C_ is in great danger of loosing the family business.
	Description of action taken:  As D_ C_'s only child and business partner, I am the only person who has not only run the business before but is willing to effectively run the business now.
	
980821:	Commanding Officer, Naval Special Warfare Center, San Diego, advised BUPERS, that applicant’s request for hardship discharge was approved and he was discharged on 7 August 1998 with a General Under Honorable Conditions.  Commanding officer’s comments:  “SA (Applicant) was separated 7 august 1998 by reason of Convenience of the Government on the basis of hardship.  His characterization of service wad downgraded from Honorable to General, as authorized by reference (a) (MILPERSMAN), based on his non-judicial punishment of June 1998 for unauthorized absence.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980807 with a general under honorable conditions due to hardship (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.  Relief denied at this time.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-110 (Previously 3620210), Separation by Reason of Convenience of the Government – Hardship.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.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:

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