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

ex-AA, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00195

Applicant’s Request 

The application for discharge review, received 991130, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions or Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized.  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 000803.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I served abroad the U.S.S. SIAPAN.  I was involved in an ongoing incident of hazing.  I myself had been on the receiving end on numerous occasions on this particular evening.  We had been called to g.q. For training ops.  It was late and after a shore wiling.  The rough housing began.  We had been warned previously that the rough housing between the "UPPER" and "LOWER" Decks was to stop.  But it was considered a "Right of Passage" so to speak to endure a clandestine beating.  Very rarely was it ever malicious but was met as a bonding or a "Ranking" of the sections.  The suggestion was made that Airman H_ should be "Reinitiated" for being in the Brig for twenty-five days.  So two other airman and myself treed to apprehend him and take him to the Box.  He treed to flee and was intercepted.  When I tried to grab his leg.  I was kicked out of the skirmish.  Several people had joined in at that point and I really didn't try to get back in.  The struggle that ensued covered a small area just outside the "RASS" station finally Airman B_, the leading airman of the ABOVE DECKS section said "If he wont come in here lets just take him on the deck.  At that point I had become a true spectator not having any more involvement.  To be honest I had thought that the incident was over.  Shortly there after were summonsed to the hanger bay.   I was pointed out and statements were made.  The investigation was very swift and inadequate; I was Heavily encouraged to embellish my statements.  By B_ and others.  Not being happy with my situation, I gave in.  I was brought to mast w/two others B_ was dismissed.  I and one other were discharged.  I feel I was treated harshly and wish to have my discharge changed.  Thank you

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)		931118 - 931212	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  931213		Date of Discharge:  951018

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (2)	Behavior:  3.10 (2)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  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 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950602:	Applicant completed Level III.

950630:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Completion of Level III.  Aftercare treatment plan..), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

950818:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobedience of a Chief Warrant Officer on 17Jul95.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-1.  Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 1 month and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950815:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, Disobeying a lawful order.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

950922:	Vacate suspended reduction awarded at CO's NJP dated 18Aug95 due to continued misconduct.

950922:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobedience of a lawful order on 14Sep95, violation of UCMJ Article 134 (2 specs): Disorderly conduct on 14Sep95 and wrongfully engage in hazing activities.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950925:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

950925:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

950927:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

951011:	BUPERS 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 951018 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims he was treated harshly and wants his discharge upgraded.  The applicant provided no documentation to support his claim.  Based on the documentation available in the applicant’s service record, the discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  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, subsequent to leaving military service.  The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed.  This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general).  Those factors include but are not limited to the following:  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate).  The applicant did not provide any documentation to demonstrate good character and conduct.  The applicant is encouraged to begin establishing a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments.  Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements.  The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, Disobedience of a Chief Warrant Officer, 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