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

ex-ADAN, USNR
Docket No. ND00-01034

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000906, 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 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I would really be grateful for the application be granted.  I really could use it in my future goals, such as law enforcement.  I am currently working two jobs and attending college full time for a masters in criminology and a minor in psychology.  Attached are letters from my bosses.

Documentation

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

Character/job reference dated June 19, 2000
Character reference dated June 19, 2000
Copy of fax letter to congressman from applicant dated June 19, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960913		Date of Discharge:  991215

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  04
	Inactive:  00  00  29

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AO3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.75 (4)	Behavior:  2.75 (4)		OTA:  2.72

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970612:	Commenced 36 months of active duty under the Seaman Apprenticeship Program.

980206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches or gestures.
	Award: Oral reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

991006:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Disrespectful language/conduct towards a senior petty officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
991206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award: Restriction for 20 days, reduction to AOAN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

991206:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

991206:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

991228:	Commanding officer recommended discharge 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 000906 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 states:  “I would really be grateful for the application be granted.  I really could use it in my future goals, such as law enforcement.  I am currently working two jobs and attending college full time for a masters in criminology and a minor in psychology.  Attached are letters from my bosses.”  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 NDRB did not find the applicant’s documentation of his post service significant enough to warrant an upgrade.  Relief is denied.

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