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

ex-OSSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00851

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000626, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to GAFFNEY, SC.  The applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) did not travel and all personal appearance hearing are held in the Washington National Capital Region.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010301.  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

1.  Were doing an ammo unload of CWI's.  I removed 2 rounds of ammo and threw them overboard.  The CO asked that whoever dit it to come forward and nothing would happen to that person.  The next morning I sent a note to the CO that I did it.  He called formation and said that he found out who it was, then went into lockdown.  The next day I was sent to a Court Martial, which resulted in 30 days in brig and $600 x 2 for the ammo and did not discharge me at that time.  Five (5) days before my separation from the Navy, I was brought to an Administrative Board where they discharged me with an "under other than honorable conditions".  From September 27, 1994, until the time of the event in September of 1998, I served the Navy honorably.  I was under the impression that after my restitution to the Navy and served my 30 days in the Brig that my discharge would be honorable or no less than a general.  There was testimony at the time of the Court Martial that I should be able to return to the ship and finish my time.  I want a personal hearing on this matter.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
VA Benefits Entitlement Letter

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  USN 			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940613 - 940926	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940927		Date of Discharge:  981209

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  04  02  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  OSSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFEM, SSDR 

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:

960530:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Was on or about 0730, 960523, as a result of previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties.

980717:	Special Court Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, violation of UCMJ Article 108: Willful damage and destruction of military property, violation of UCMJ Article 121: Larceny.
Sentence:  Confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $600.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.

980922:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct 

980922:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. 

981026:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

981102:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  

981110:	Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk authorized the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981209 under other than 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).

The applicant’s issue states:  “Were doing an ammo unload of CWI's.  I removed 2 rounds of ammo and threw them overboard.  The CO asked that whoever dit it to come forward and nothing would happen to that person.  The next morning I sent a note to the CO that I did it.  He called formation and said that he found out who it was, then went into lockdown.  The next day I was sent to a Court Martial, which resulted in 30 days in brig and $600 x 2 for the ammo and did not discharge me at that time.  Five (5) days before my separation from the Navy, I was brought to an Administrative Board where they discharged me with an "under other than honorable conditions".  From September 27, 1994, until the time of the event in September of 1998, I served the Navy honorably.  I was under the impression that after my restitution to the Navy and served my 30 days in the Brig that my discharge would be honorable or no less than a general.  There was testimony at the time of the Court Martial that I should be able to return to the ship and finish my time.  I want a personal hearing on this matter.”  The NDRB found no impropriety or inequity in the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant’s impression that he would receive an honorable or general discharge is not founded on any regulation.  The Board found that considering the applicant’s conviction at Special Court Martial for serious offenses  (Articles 107 and 108) an Other Than Honorable Discharge accurately characterized the applicant’s service.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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