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

 ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00088

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991019, 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 000720.  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.  My discharge was improper because it was dealt with in a speedy and indelicate manner. My ship was getting ready to deploy and the command then did not deal with my discharge respectfully or considerately.

2.  My discharge was improper because it was based on one incident that happened within 52 months of "honorable" service.

3.  My discharge was inequitable and improper because it was based on one man's opinion who knew nothing about me and disliked me for what reason I do not know. (The one man was a chief from V-4 division).  The chain of command from my parent-division (V-1) protected me from his accusations as much as they could.  If it weren't for them it probably would have been a worse condition.   

Documentation

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

Letter from applicant (3pgs)
Copy of Statement of Active Military Service
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940524 - 940612	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940613		Date of Discharge:  961008

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (1)	Behavior:  3.60 (1)		OTA:  3.60	(4.0 eval)
Performance:  2.66 (3)	Behavior:  1.66 (3)		OTA:  2.89	(5.0 evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SASM(wb*), NUC, SSDR, AFSM, NM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6 

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:

960731:	Applicant UA from USS Theodore Roosevelt this date.

960731:	Applicant missed ship’s movement.  USS Theodore Roosevelt expected to return to Norfolk Naval base 20 Sept 96

960805:	Applicant surrenders this date at TPU NORVA.

961007:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specs), Spec 1: UA from unit 0700, 960731 to 0700, 960805 [6days/S], Spec 2: Fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: V-5 Morning Division Muster on or about 0700, 960930, Spec 3: Failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: V-5 Morning Division Muster on or about 0700, 961001, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Ship's Movement on 960731.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $490.00 per month for 2 months, Bread & Water for 3 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

No further information found in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961008 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that although the discharge may have been dealt with in an expeditious manner, it was not improper.  It is within the CO’s discretion to recommend an individual be separated due to misconduct based on missing ship’s movement, which is a court martial offense.  The applicant could have gone to a court martial, but instead the CO chose to administratively separate the member and spare him from a potential Bad Conduct Discharge or a Dishonorable Discharge.  No relief will be granted based on this issue.

The fact that the discharge was based on one incident in 52 months of service does not make the discharge improper, as the applicant suggests in issue 2.  The applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”.  The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record.  No such leniency exists in the military.  The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

The Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby.  Therefore no relief is granted.

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 87, missing ship’s movement 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 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