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

 ex-AMSAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00157

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991112, 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 000727.  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)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  “MILPERSMAN 3630600” vice “3630300”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  From what I understand, this upgrade was available to me 6 months after discharge, by request.  I appreciate your consideration for this upgrade.

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)	940823 - 950109	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950110		Date of Discharge:  970314

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  AMSAN (E-3)

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SWASM, Navy "E" Ribbon, AFSM, MUC 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD AND UNABLE TO GET FROM APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS COMMAND.]

960919:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $35.00 per month for 1 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960919:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (violation of UCMJ Article 86, documented by record of CO's NJP held on 96SEP19), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

970218:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 91:  insubordinate conduct towards a petty officer.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction for 20 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 970314 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of 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 1 the applicant states, “this upgrade was available to me 6 months after discharge, by request.”  There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  The Board reviews the propriety (did the USN/USMC follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with the USN/USMC guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge.  Finally, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his community and to society in general).   The Board found that the applicant had 2 NJPs and received a retention warning.  Although the applicant’s discharge package is missing from the service record, the Board presumes regularity and finds that the discharge was proper and equitable.  There is nothing in the record, nor did the applicant provide any evidence to show that his discharge was improperly conducted.  No relief will be granted based on this issue. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

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