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

 ex-LNC, USN
Docket No. ND00-00302

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000105, 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 000824.  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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement:  "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 89MAY05 UNTIL 941220".  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action.  Please review my military records.  Thank you.

Documentation

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

Letter from Family Service Center dated January 19, 1999
Letter from defense counsel dated January 22, 1999
Job/character recommendation dated December 14, 1999
Recommendation dated December 2, 1999
Copies of questionnaires dated March 2, 1998, undated (2), February 15, 1998, March 3, 1998 (2), February 25, 1998, March 5, 1998 and March 4, 1998
Copy of DD Form 214 (2)
Copy of  application for consideration under the active duty chief warrant officer program dated July 14, 1997
Copy of recommendation for selection to chief warrant officer dated July 17, 1997
Job/character reference dated November 2, 1997

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	811106 - 820408	COG
	Active:   USN 		820409 - 850504	HON
		   USN			850505 - 890504	HON
		   USN			890505 - 940609	HON
		   USN			940610 - 951220	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951221		Date of Discharge:  981002

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  09  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  31			Years Contracted:  3

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  62

Highest Rate:  LNC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.70 (2)	Behavior:  4.30 (2)		OTA:  ???

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NCM, NAM (4), GCM (4), KLM (2), NDSM, 
         SASM (4), NUC, NER (2), SSDR (6)

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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980826:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (5 specs):
Specification 1: Indecent liberties with a female under 16 years between May 1995 and September 1997, to wit: exposing his genitals, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 2: Indecent liberties with a female under 16 years between May 1995 and September 1997, to wit: exposing his genitals, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 3: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in January 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her buttocks, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 4: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in August 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her vagina, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 5: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in August 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her vagina, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $1,147 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days.  Restriction for 30 days suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980827:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980827:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with 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.

980904:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

980911:	Commander, Naval Base, San Diego 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 981002 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).

The applicant’s issue states:  “The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action.  Please review my military records.  Thank you.”  The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found the reason for the applicant’s discharge was his NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 134: Indecent Liberties and Acts with a Minor (Five Specifications).  The NDRB found the applicant’s documented misconduct was such severity that it outweighed his otherwise creditable service.  Relief is not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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