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

ex-AMHAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00469

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010130, 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 010615.  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)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-104 (formerly 3620150).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  The discharge is improper because of the additional documents that states.  That I received a upgrade on may discharge of a General to a Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Navy.  With the two documents the DD from 214 and DD256N (REV 5-50) for my prof.  Also a copy of my MGIB participation form that I agree to have my pay reduced by a 100 dollar for 12 mouths.  Which was witness and signed by RM1 M_, J_ M_ on 95/05/24 when I was in boot camp.  Please reply in writing.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Copy 1 and 4)
Copy of DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
Honorable Discharge Certificate reflecting discharge on 22 May 1999, issued on 24 Jan 2001 
MGI Bill Enrollment dtd 950524

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	9500403 - 950522	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950523		Date of Discharge:  990522

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  GED		AFQT:  36

Highest Rate:  AMHAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (6)	Behavior:  2.17 (6)		OTA:  3.0 (5.0 evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Battle "E" Ribbon, Safety "S", SSDR(2) 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-104 (formerly 3620150).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950524:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (fraudulent induction as evidenced by failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility information - dependent child not documented), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

960502:	Advised he has accumulated the 1st Physical Readiness Program Failure due to failure or the failure of the run.  Enrolled in the command's Level I Physical Readiness Conditioning Program.  Applicant acknowledged his understanding that if not within the PRT program standards that he would not be eligible to reenlist and may be processed for admin separation.

970115:	Signed Adverse Performance Evaluation for period 96JUL16 to 97JAN15.  The evaluation states:  "Member has accumulated nine military and two civil offenses".

970828:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence.
Award:  UNKNOWN (EXTRACTED from 97JUL16 to 98JAN15 performance evaluation and retention warning dtd 970901.)

970902:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (CO's NJP of 28 Aug 97 - violation of the UCMJ Article 86 - absence without leave), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990413:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:  wrongful use, possession, etc, of controlled substances.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $537 per month for 2 month(s), extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990522:	Applicant released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserves, having 4 years of active duty and received characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Reserve Obligation Termination Date of 5 May 2003.

000330:	DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214) issued by the Naval Reserve Personnel Center to show "Discharged" instead of "Released from Active Duty and Transferred to Naval Reserve".

010124:	"Honorable Discharge" Certificate erroneously issued instead of the "General Discharge" Certificate.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990522 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to completion of required active service (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 the applicant’s issue, the Board determined that the DD Form 215 issued to the applicant was to correct item 23 on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Item 23 should read “Discharged” vice “Released from Active Duty and Transferred to Naval Reserve”.  This form (DD Form 215) has no bearing on the applicant’s characterization of discharge.  The Board further determined that the DD Form 256 N (REV.5-50), stating that the applicant received an honorable discharge, was issued in error.  The applicant should have received a general (under honorable conditions) certificate of discharge as warranted by his service record and as stated on the applicant's DD Form 214.  The applicant had two NJP's for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence) and 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance).  In addition, the applicant’s  enlisted performance evaluation averages do not support a fully honorable discharge.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  In order for the applicant to receive his MGIB benefits, he would need an honorable discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  The applicant must be aware that 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 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 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-104 (previously 3620150), Separation by Reason of Expiration of Active Obligated Service (EAOS). 

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 "afls10.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