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

 ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00418 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000816.  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 4 to 1 that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

None

Documentation

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

Texas Southern University Grade Reports
Letter of Reference from Reverend and Mrs. W_____ dtd 15 Sep 00
Letter of Reference from Ms. A____, Academic Advisor
Letter of Recommendation dtd 11 Sep 00
Letter of Reference from Ms. H_____ dtd 9 Sep 00
Letter of Reference from Ms. R_______ undated
Letter of Reference from Mr. H_____ dtd 13 Sep 00
Letter of Reference from Ms. H_____ undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910717 - 920615	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920616		Date of Discharge:  940930

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rate:  YN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.46 (3)	Behavior:  3.33 (3)		OTA:  3.46

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

921116:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny and wrongful appropriation.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $184.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930723:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (CO's NJP on 921116 for larceny and wrongful appropriation; financial indebtedness; violation of written orders: Failure to obey an order or regulation (wrongfully escorting a guest into BEQ after 2400) on 930713.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
940504:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty for approximately 2 hours on 940422, uniform violations (counseling from VT-86 CMC and Admin LPO concerning hair on 940203, misappropriation - unauthorized use of access code in BEQ (overdue phone bill on $179.11 on 931110, statutory notices on dishonored checks for the following amounts $147.53 and $201.75 on 830315.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
940810:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer on 940803.
	Award:  Reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

940823:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940902:  	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to make a statement and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

940906:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments:  YN3 Bluitt has had continuous deficiencies in her performance and has refused to conform to military standards since entering the U.S. Navy.  She has been a constant administrative burden to this command.  While her misconduct has not been criminal in nature, I do not believe that she will ever be able to conform to the military way of life.  I do, however, feel she is capable of being a productive member of the civilian sector.  It would be in the best interest of the U.S. Navy and YN3 Bluitt to separate her Under General conditions.

940919:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under other than honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

990823:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND98-00601 conducted.  Determination:  discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940930 general (under 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).

The applicant listed no specific issues for the Board to address.  

The Board found that the applicant served only 2 years and 3 months of a 4 year enlistment.  The applicant received 2 retention warnings and 2 CO’s NJPs over the course of her enlistment.  The applicant was discharged 940930 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization.  The Board found that the discharge was both proper and equitable at the time of issuance.  No relief granted.

The Board also considered the applicant’s post-service conduct.  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.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  The Board considered the applicant’s documentary evidence consisting of grade reports and letters of reference.  Upon review of the documents, the Board did not find sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade to honorable.  The Board found the discharge equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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 121, larceny; Article 91, insubordinate conduct 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