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

 ex-AMSAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00507

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to: “respectfully request to have R.E. code upgraded.”  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 020221.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

Here are a few reasons why I wish to have my discharge upgraded.
1.  I was slapped in the face by an E-4 in front of my division chief and my chief said nothing. 2.  There was a panel on the aircraft that was missing fasteners.  Eight people were equally at fault but I was the only one punished for it. 3.  I was a hard worker and I earned my plane captain qualification before most of the people that were there before me. 4.  I was a proud sailor and loved doing my job and serving my country.
5.  I feel that being discharged has taught me a valuable lesson and has forced me to mature a lot more.

Documentation

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

Character reference from applicant's father dated August 16, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated March 2, 2001
Ninety-four pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980331 - 980517	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980518		Date of Discharge:  000519

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  00  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11 GED		AFQT:  59

Highest Rate:  AMSAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000204:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107, violation of UCMJ, Article 108.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000501:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91, violation of UCMJ, Article 108. Award: Forfeiture of $563 per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days, reduction to AMSAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000519:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 first and second issues describe undocumented incidents of the applicant’s service.  They did not form the basis for separation.  The reason for separation is a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant did not provide documentation to fully explain the relevance of these issues in the context of the propriety or equity of the discharge.  Accordingly the Board found these issues non decisional and relief is denied.

The applicant’s third and fourth issues state:  “I was a hard worker and I earned my plane captain qualification before most of the people that were there before me.” And “I was a proud sailor and loved doing my job and serving my country.”  The applicant’s overall performance was considered in the assignment of the discharge.  The basis for the applicant’s discharge was a pattern of misconduct established by his two NJP convictions.  Both NJP’s included violations of the UCMJ categorized as serious military offenses.  A complete chronology of the applicant’s service could not be constructed due to the fact that the applicant’s discharge package was missing.  Therefore, the Board assumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  Accordingly, the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made.  Based on the applicant’s service record and all supplemental documentation provided that pertain to this case the discharge was determined to be proper and equitable.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s fifth issue states:  “I feel that being discharged has taught me a valuable lesson and has forced me to mature a lot more.”  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Therefore, relief is denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Pers-814, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055.  A less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is not, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can normally be done during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is denied.

The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support his petition for discharge upgrade at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.   

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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