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

 ex-SMSN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00489

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010303, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant did listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.  The applicant notified the NDRB one day prior to his scheduled personal appearance on 011218 that he would be unable to travel to Washington D.C. for the hearing.  The Board requested documentation to support a change in hearing due to an unforeseen hardship, and the applicant was given until 020108 to provide related documentation.  On 020107 the applicant requested the Board conduct a documentary review.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020130.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My discharge was inequitable because I firmly believe that had I been a rating that I could have excelled in, none of this would have happened.  Unfortunately electronics had slowly eroded away the signalman rating and there were countless numbers of times when there was nothing to do.  As a result I had tried, to the best of my knowledge, at least seven times to change my rate, none of which were approved. I am not attempting to make any unnecessary excuses for my actions; however, I feel that had I been given the opportunity to provide the Navy with productive tasks and abilities in a rate which I know I would have been very successful in that I would have given the Navy far more than 100%. I am not trying to separate this as one isolated incident; however, as is noted in previous discharges and evaluations, the willingness, perseverance, professionalism and devotion to duty has always been there in each command.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (currently enlistment)
Copy of DD Form 214 (1980-1984)
Copy of DD Form 214 (Army)
Copy of DD Form 214 (1964-1966)
Copy of Enlisted Efficiency Reports dated April 24, 1975, September 20, 1975
Copy of Report of Enlisted Performance Evaluation dated 14Jun80 to 15Aug80, 1Aug81 to 30Sep81, 30Jun81 to 30Jun82, and 1Jul82 to 15Jun83
Copy of letter of appreciation dated January 4, 1978 and November 7, 1985
Copy of certificate dated May 4, 1984
Letter from applicant requesting conversion to documentary review dtd 020107
Education enrolment verification from Valencia Community College dtd 011219

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR-R		630112 - 690111	HON
		   USA			740522 - 780519	HON
		   USN			800201 - 800515	HON
		   USN			800516 - 840325	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	790228 - 800131	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840326		Date of Discharge:  860307

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  39			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11 GED		AFQT:  60

Highest Rate:  SM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.87 (3)	Behavior:  2.67 (3)		OTA:  2.73

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (2), HSM, NDSM, AFEM, GCM, NUC, VSR, VCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

851112:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking words and gestures on 0045 26Oct85; violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on 0045, 26Oct85.
	Award: Forfeiture of one half pay per month for 2 months, reduction to SM3.  Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860114:	Vacate suspended forfeiture and reduction awarded at CO's NJP dated 12Nov85.

860114:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): Disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer on 0345, 6Jan86, (2) Disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer on 0400, 6Jan86; violation of UCMJ Article 92:(1) Wrongfully fail to obey lawful order on 0330 6Jan86, (2) Wrongfully fail to obey lawful order on 0345, 6Jan06; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly conduct on 0315, 6Jan86.
	Award: Forfeiture of $425 per month for 2 months, restriction and reduction to SMSN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860115:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860124:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

860126:	Applicant found not alcohol dependent.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 9Feb86.]

860209:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860213:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 860307 under other than 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).

Issue 1.  The applicant states:  “My discharge was inequitable because I firmly believe that had I been a rating that I could have excelled in, none of this would have happened.  Unfortunately electronics had slowly eroded away the signalman rating and there were countless numbers of times when there was nothing to do.  As a result I had tried, to the best of my knowledge, at least seven times to change my rate, none of which were approved.”  The Board disagrees that the applicant’s discharge was inequitable due to his rating assignment.  The record shows the applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense.  The applicant’s dissatisfaction with his rating assignment did not mitigate the documented misconduct in his service record.  The Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service.  Relief is denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/84, effective 17 Sep 84 until 15 Dec 85), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 "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