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

 ex-ATAR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00861

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000705, 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 010125.  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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My service in the United States Navy was marked by one isolated incident of serious misbehavior, which was unacceptable.  However, in addition to this incident my career I the Navy resulted in the following awards and commendations:
•	Certificate of Commendation		11 Sep 96
•	Letter of Appreciation			25 Nov 96
•	Certificate of Leadership Unlimited	14 May 97
•	Hardcharger of the month		14 July 97
In addition to the above commendations and awards, I discovered that I had passed the exam and was to be promoted to PO3 had the above incident of misbehavior not occurred.  I am part of the third generation of service by my family in the Navy.  Beginning with my grandfather, P_ F. D_, who served in the naval communications intelligence I World War II, Two uncles, S_ S. D_, and P_ A. D_, both line officers and one cousin, N_ B. C_ III.   Another mitigating circumstance at the time of my discharge was the indication by the legal officer involved that there would not be a material difference in perception between an honorable discharge and a general discharge under honorable conditions.  I have since discovered that there is indeed a very significant difference in perception, which can have an unfortunate bearing on my future career.  Had I realized what I know now I would have requested a hearing with legal representation rather than accept a less than honorable discharge without a hearing.
     I would respectfully request that the above awards and commendations and my passing of the PO3 exam be considered in the overall determination of an appropriate level of discharge.  I hope that on balance the board would agree that this could warrant an increase in discharge status to that of honorable.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Certificate of Commendation, NATTC, of 11SEP96
Letter of Appreciation, NATTC, of 25NOV96
Certificate of Leadership Unlimited of 14MAY97
Hardcharger of the month award of 14JUL97

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960429 - 960430	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960501		Date of Discharge:  980604

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  93

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, AFSM, SSR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). [Administratively corrected]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980522:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112:  drunk while on duty on 01 May 98.
	Award:  Restriction for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980601:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, 92, 107:  failed to obey the order by wrongfully missing his 0630 restricted man's muster..
	Award:  Forfeiture of half months pay month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980603:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general, under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO's Mast on 22MAY98 and 1JUN98.

9800603:	Applicant advised of his rights and elected to right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

980603:	CO, Sea Control Squadron 24, advised BUPERS, applicant was discharged with a general, under 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 980604 with a general, under 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 stated that his misconduct was mitigated by his otherwise positive contributions.  The NDRB found the applicant’s discharge with a General accurately characterized his service.  The applicant’s service was marred by two NJP’s in his enlistment including Violation of Article 112 (Drunk on Duty) and Articles 86, 92, and 107.  The applicant requested relief due to his long family heritage and association with the Navy.  The NDRB found relief is not warranted.  

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  There is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to support an upgrade based on post service conduct.

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 97 until 29 March 2000, 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