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

ex-AZAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-01052

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000918, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Miami, Florida.  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) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  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:  HONORABLE/ UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I was retained in the NAVY extra time to be able to receive my G.I. Bill benefits.  I did not receive them due to the characterization of the Honorable discharge.

2.  I was told I would receive the benefits by the XO of VFA-86 and by a JAG Lawyer from NAS Jacksonville.

3.  Discharge needs to be Honorable with a characterization definable as "COG" in order to receive the G.I. Bill Benefits.

4. The JAG, Lt. verified with Dept of Veterans as to the requirements before discharge.  The XO was notified, but my discharge paperwork was written incorrectly.

5.  Have a Master Chief that will verify all information needed.

6. Please help!

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letters from Department of Veterans Affairs dated January 28, 1999, one undated, March 26, 1999, April 27, 1999, June 22, 2000, June 25, 2000, April 27, 2000 
Letter to Department of Veterans Affairs dated March 4, 1999
Letter from applicant to Chief of Naval Operations dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Assistant Special Counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations dated March 25, 1999, May 9, 1999
Letter from applicant to Office of the CNO dated April 20, 1999
Letter to Secretary of the Navy dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Assistant Commander Naval Personnel Command, Personal Readiness and Community Support (NPC-6) dated March 24, 1999
Letter to Secretary of Defense dated March 4, 1999
Letter from applicant to Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron 86 dated March 22, 1999
Letter to Senator dated March 4, 1999
Letter from United States Senator dated March 30, 1999
Letter from United States Senator dated April 26, 1999
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs to United States Senator dated April 1999
Letter to Naval Legal Service Office dated March 4, 1999
Letter to Executive Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter to MMCPO, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter to Governor of Flordia dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Department of the Veterans' Affairs dated June 22, 1999
Copy of leave and earning statement prepared March 21, 1997
A letter to Governor of Texas, a Senator and Vice President dated March 25, 2000
Letter from United States Senate dated May 16, 2000
Copy of applicant's medical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960404 - 960417	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960418		Date of Discharge:  981022

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  AZAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50 (2)	Behavior:  1.00 (2)		OTA:  2.58

Military Decorations:  None

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

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

HONORABLE/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

971118:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
	Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 1 month, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to AZAA.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

971118:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.   [Extracted from CO's letter dated October 22, 1998.  No further information found in service record.]

981022:	Commanding officer recommended discharge honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Enclosure (2) is an Administrative Counseling/Warning Page 13 issued to AZAA (applicant) after he was awarded Non Judicial Punishment on 24 October 1997 for Violation of UCMJ Article 91; Insubordinate Conduct (enclosure (4)).  AZAA (applicant) violated the Page 13 during a squadron detachment in August 1998, 10 months later, in which he was insubordinate towards his Leading Petty Officer.  AZAA (applicant) has an enlisted performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1997 to 15 January 1998 with a trait of 1.0 in Military Bearing/Character and trait of 1.0 in Teamwork.  In view of the aforementioned, AZAA (applicant) has demonstrated he is not capable of continued military service.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (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).

In response to applicant’s issues 1-6, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  However, 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.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  The applicant was fortunate to receive an honorable discharge vice a general discharge.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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 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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to Present, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300), Separation by Reason of Unsatisfactory Performance.

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